Goldman, Sachs & Co Resumes Uair

USA320Pilot

Veteran
May 18, 2003
8,175
1,539
www.usaviation.com
Goldman, Sachs & Co. UAIR analysis - March 4, 2004

Subject: US Airlines: US Airways Initiation: Crisis Management

Crisis management. Despite its emergence from bankruptcy, USAirways has not solved its structural cost problems.

Given that UAIR has ample liquidity and stakeholders with an incentive to keep the company alive, we believe that near-term bankruptcy risk is overstated.

We have resumed our coverage with an In-Line rating.

Still the high-cost producer despite bankruptcy; status quo unsustainable

Despite bankruptcy concessions, US Airways remains one of the industry's higher-cost producers. We do not believe that the company can make much money absent a strong recovery and significant fuel price decline, and the path to further cost reductions remains unclear. We resume coverage of the stock with an In-Line rating and estimate a $6.75 per share loss in 2004.

Imminent bankruptcy filing unlikely ...

With $1.3 billion in unrestricted cash and cash burn under $1 million a day, we see few events that would catalyze an additional bankruptcy filing. US Airways has little liquidation value, and neither management, creditors, nor labor has any incentive to force another bankruptcy.

Dependent on strong economy and business-travel recovery this year

An improving economy and lower fuel prices could make US Airways' cash flow break even in 2005, and as evident by the last cycle, the company has tremendous leverage in an extended recovery, but considerable risk to a faltering economy or exogenous event.

High risk, high reward

US Airways will probably not meet its debt covenants this spring, but we doubt that the government and creditors will force bankruptcy, and pilots appear willing to grant new concessions. Union leaders resent having to repeatedly go back to their members for concessions, but labor tends to give enough to permit a company to survive, though not flourish.

Over time, we see US Airways again trying to merge with a larger airline.
 
USA320Pilot said:
Over time, we see US Airways again trying to merge with a larger airline.
The key word there is, TRYING.

They've been trying for a long time, and will continue trying to the bitter end.

Doesn't mean it will happen, that it is imminent, or even probable.
 
767jetz:

Today the Wall Street Journal reported Dave Siegel won't comment on whether US Airways has been approached by a potential buyer. He says his focus is on fixing the company on a stand-alone basis, "so we're a more attractive partner" when the "necessary, logical and inevitable" consolidation occurs. UAL's United Airlines tried to buy US Airways in 2000, but the Justice Department nixed the plan. A United-US Airways match-up still makes sense, the analysts wrote.

USA320Pilot comments: What's interesting is that Northwest may be interested in merging with US Airways, although its uncertain if a deal could proceed. If US Airways and Northwest did merge, this would require US Airways and United to undo the code share relationship and would put enormous pressure of United, especially in the Pacific.

However, with US Airways deepening its relationship with United, GECAS reportedly working on a deal where US Airways RJ delivery positions could fix United's Dulles problem, and US Airways entering the Star alliance this spring, I suspect we will see a corporate transaction between our two companies, in the not-so-distant future.

In fact, with news reports that the ATSB is jittery regarding United's loan guarantee application, there is more reason to believe RSA could be United's equity investor, as the only way for the Chicago-based airline to emerge from its formal reorganization, and then RSA would merge our airlines.

Time will tell how this unfolds, but with United losing over $6 million per day (over $8 million per day with restructuring costs) in January, something needs to change for US Airways' business partner.

Regards,

USA320Pilot
 
USA320Pilot said:
1. ... If US Airways and Northwest did merge, this would require US Airways and United to undo the code share relationship and would put enormous pressure of United, especially in the Pacific. ...

2. ... Time will tell how this unfolds, but with United losing over $6 million per day (over $8 million per day with restructuring costs) in January, something needs to change for US Airways' business partner.
1. NW seems to be doing OK, despite the "enormous pressure" the current UA/U code share relationship must be putting on NW, using your logic.

2. Good thing life is just going swimmingly and nothing needs to change at UA's Arlington-based business partner, right? It's only UA that has serious problems... :rolleyes:
 
USA320Pilot said:
In fact, with news reports that the ATSB is jittery regarding United's loan guarantee application,...
Proof? Links? Sources????????????????

I didn't think so. :down:

(and please, no more analysts. I'm sorry but they are not considered informed sources.)

Funny thing is that I hear the exact opposite... that the 2 largest financial institutions in North America (JP Morgan & CitiGroup, NOT RSA) are confident in UA's business plan and future viability, and may even be competing to loan UA the $$$ they need (albeit, at a higher rate) without the ATSB.
 
why is there sp much pressure on nwa as far as our alliance with united goes when afterall nwa and co are allianced with delta as code share partners??
 
767jetz said:
USA320Pilot said:
In fact, with news reports that the ATSB is jittery regarding United's loan guarantee application,...
Proof? Links? Sources????????????????

I didn't think so. :down:
767jetz:

My thoughts exactly! I follow the aviation industry's news on a daily basis as part of my job and I haven't seen ANY such reports. In fact, the ATSB has made almost no comments at all regarding United's request for a loan guarantee. And here in Washington, where government agencies leak news like a sieve, that is quite an accomplishment.

My guess is this will just be another question that USA320Pilot will ignore.
 
Did I miss something? Where is it written He or I or anyone else needs to prove any of their opinions or sources. For that matter a few of you on here already take "no stock " in what he says. So why respond ?What could he possibly say to change your "minds" NOTHING! So why feed the fire? What he does post is thought provoking. Obviously it works since your "thoughts" were posted. What he post is in some sense "lodgical' to say the least. Regardless of your opinion about the poster, our future will be with another airline. They have tried it once and obviously still have the same intent in the long term and he all but says he intends to in the long run by saying we must be ready to consolidate when the industry turns in that direction. I personally think 320 bringa alot of "positve" thought provoking " subjects to this board.Unlike a few on here who can do nothing but insult and bring nothing but negative posts to the table. My opinion and your welcome to it , !
 
usfliboi said:
Did I miss something? Where is it written He or I or anyone else needs to prove any of their opinions or sources.
usfliboi:

It's called CREDIBILITY.

It's one thing to post an opinion, which everyone clearly has a right to do. It's quite another thing, however, to post opinions disguised as "facts". So when USA320Pilot says ...

In fact, with news reports that the ATSB is jittery regarding United's loan guarantee application, ...
people who are not familiar with those "news reports" can reasonably ask to see (or get a link to) them. If nothing is then provided, one can only conclude that the supposed "news reports" simply don't exist. As someone who closely follows the aviation industry on a daily basis, I haven't seen any such reports. And while I'm willing to be convinced otherwise, it will take more than USA320Pilot's word alone to do it.

If USA320Pilot's manufacturing of "facts" was only an occasional occurrence, I (and others) would undoubtedly overlook it. But this happens with unfortunate regularity, especially when the subject involves United. In the end, USA320Pilot's "facts" are often simply his imagination on overdrive. And you're nothing more than sycophant when you blindly support him in this type of situation.
 
usfliboi said:
Where is it written He or I or anyone else needs to prove any of their opinions...
Everyone is entitled to an opinion. It is when he states his opinions as fact that most of us get offended. Stating things like "with news reports that the ATSB is jittery regarding United's loan guarantee application, ..." when in fact there are no such news reports, begs for clarification and proof.

There are no such reports, and if there are I would love to see them.

The problem is that if someone repeats a lie over and over and over and over and over, without anyone questioning its validity or showing that it is false, eventually everyone starts to believe the lies.

And personally as a UA employee, I do not want to lose 1 customer who may be unsure of UA's future, and casually reads this board, to avoid UA because they take someone's lies and misleading, unsubstantiated information as fact.
 
I posted this elsewhere, but due to the previous statements of opinion as fact, I thought it would be appropriate to post it here as well, to show how unreliable a certain person's "informed opinion" really is.

USA320Pilot said:
Dave Siegel told ATW that he would like to serve 20 European destinations from Philadelphia and once things stabilize, there is reason to believe the United B767-200s will be transferred to US Airways. In my opinion, we could see an agreement announced in time for US Airways to market the flying, train the crews, and staff the expanded operation in time for the summer 2005 travel season.

Regards,

USA320Pilot
Well, well, well...

Another prediction that hasn't come true.

Hmmmmmm...

Here's a news flash for you:

"UAL Corp., the parent of United Airlines, reached a deal to sell 16 Boeing 767-222 aircraft and five spare engines to the Air Transport Group Inc. for $32 million, according to a papers filed in bankruptcy court."

IMO just another example of how often your endless speculation and "reliable sources" are wrong.
 
David Bronner is getting up in front of the US unions on a regular basis, in essence to tell them that either costs come down or he liquidates the joint, and yet some people on this BB seem to think he will double his airline pleasure, and throw a couple hundred more million at a US/UA combination.

I tend to think not, but I'm realistic about things (and without an agenda).

Dave Siegel's name keeps getting tossed about with reference to his quotes about "inevitable industry consolidation." This guy and his crew missed both cost and revenue projections by the sunny side of a billion dollars less than a year removed from their first Chapter 11 POR. Taking his word about anything that might happen "in the industry" in a "strategic" way is like calling Ms. Cleo for investment advice.

Come to think of it, if you are a US employee, it's probably cheaper to call Ms. Cleo. I digress.

Nobody is going to buy or merge with US, when they can simply let it die and get the pieces they want during the fire sale. I did not see it mentioned, but I believe that another major investment firm (Morgan Stanley) was retained to try to find buyers for chunks of US during the proposed fire sale (by the same chairman that certain posters postulate is going to buy United!).

Dorothy (and Ms. Cleo!) at 11.
 

Latest posts