What's new

Hard Questions

To answer the OP’s question of what will us airways need to do in material terms ….


I think in these trying times when gas is going ever higher and our workers are pressed just to get by , we’re going to have to put our heads together and work as a team ….to ship lots and lots of narcotics … lol


:lol:
 
Thanks. This was what I was looking for - again, thanks.

NYCbusdriver is correct, there is a min. number of hulls for each side, east and west. We are less than a dozen away. The aircraft that will be parked over the next 6 months will be 737s, this has been planned for some time, but no less than the min fleet size. Parker mentioned a few weeks back in CLT that he could not go below the min fleet size and he wasn't planning on it. Additionally, he thought, with 2.8 billion in cash, we were well positioned, the 2nd best in the industry was his statement. Only NWA was position better, that is of the legacy carriers.

He also stated that if some of the legacy carriers were to go chapter 11, we would not be one of them. With fuel at $120 per barrell, we were losing about $1.1 billion per year. He threw out some numbers and, though he didn't give this number, some quick math came out with the $1.1 billion. That was without the current ticket increase of up to $60 per trip and the new 2nd bag charge. He was actually quite amazed with the amount of revenue the $25 per bag created in one week, I don't recall the number.

It's rare that a CEO will tell a group of pilots how well positioned we are, that we are not planning on downsizing, that our European flights are making money, all while preparing to go into negotiations with USAPA.

He also said there would not be, no surprise here, any growth until this was behind us. He also stated, that, absent a merger with UAL, he wanted to get the pilot integration contract completed as quickly as possible.

FWIW
 
I remember a Fla station being closed down in 1984- 85. It was protected under the agreement. Also the closing of Pitt shop and guys out the door and NOT by senority number ( 9/11). The station went to arbitration. We lost ."The company has the right to determin its own destany"was the ruling. On the shops closing and out of senority number order, "force majeure " was the ruling. We still have our good friend Hemenway. The other butcher just left NWA. Cohen. (spelling ,but who cares) They are just doing their jobs. They go to church on Saturday orSundays ? Not! :down:
 
If Parker steps down, I hear Rumsfield is currently available. :disguise:
 
This is moved by me from a closed thread and I believe it is appropriate to answer the question asked by Bear96 here.

QUOTE (hp_fa @ May 30 2008, 06:38 PM)
I think we are getting close to re-regulation and/or changes to anti-trust revisions pertaining to the entire industry.


Bear96 asked:

Why do you think that? I have heard no such talk from politicians on Capitol Hill.

My response:

My reason for thinking this is that it is my opinion that we now have passed the point of critical mass for this to be a national problem. Airlines have been folding or reorganizing under Chapter 11 like crazy of late. Even American Airlines is having issues that are significant enough to cause them to start charging for a first checked bag and to talk of impending layoffs. Perhaps it can be argued that Southwest is doing OK, but that alone is not enough to ensure the viability of the national airline transportation system.

My concern is that if free market economics are allowed to continue to on their present course, without intervention, some airlines will go out of business and the majority of the rest will be so weakened that they will be in no position to take up the slack, even allowing for the positive effect of reducing capacity from the domestic market.
 
I have a couple more questions if anyone has the time.

1. Can we go BK again? Are you allowed to go BK three times or is this a "new" company due to the merger with a new "clock",so to speak?

2. I know BK laws have changed (I assume that they are stricter these days) that seemed to be why NW & DL filed when they did. What are the factors that would allow/prevent US going BK again?

3. We do have some cash, would this need to go away first before filing BK?

4. If in BK and broken up, would the same conditions that went with the "Eastern Shuttle" apply or is this all determined by the acquiring entity?
 
PHLREZ
From my perspective this is one of the worst decisions I have seen in a long time. The total weight is not being reduced. The pax are cramming as much as they can into a single bag. The weight per bag has increased across the board and I would be willing to bet that at least 50% of the bags now weigh between 30 and 50 pounds. Then there are at least 10% now going over 50 pounds. Some are being tagged as heavy and I assume those pax are being charged extra but the majority are not being tagged as heavy. It is not uncommon to have bags upwards of 90+ pounds. I even had one today that said 96 pounds.

Then instead of checking the second bag they are taking them to the aircraft to be put in the overhead bins. The bins fill up and then these are jetway checked. I have had flights where there were over 20 gate checked bags. We are still getting the weight but in another form.

Oh, I see. Not exactly the wonderful results I had in mind. Thanks for the insight.
Still, the overhead must be a smaller dimension to get on board. This gate checking loophole has got to stop though.

1. Can we go BK again? Are you allowed to go BK three times or is this a "new" company due to the merger with a new "clock",so to speak?

I have seen nothing to support a new BK bailout. Too many airlines have fallen without even a peep from congress. The environment isn't there. Too much national debt that both sides are saying they can reduce, a war going on, and a bit of an anti-business atmosphere.


"some airlines will go out of business and the majority of the rest will be so weakened that they will be in no position to take up the slack,"

Wait till monopolistic practices take hold. The goverment will allow this to go on till the remaining airlines become healthy.
Then they'll break them up like AT&T. 🙂
 
My legal and BK experience predates the changes to the bankruptcy code which became law in 2005. I'll make a cursary look and see if I can find some answers.
 
I have a couple more questions if anyone has the time.

1. Can we go BK again? Are you allowed to go BK three times or is this a "new" company due to the merger with a new "clock",so to speak?

2. I know BK laws have changed (I assume that they are stricter these days) that seemed to be why NW & DL filed when they did. What are the factors that would allow/prevent US going BK again?

3. We do have some cash, would this need to go away first before filing BK?

4. If in BK and broken up, would the same conditions that went with the "Eastern Shuttle" apply or is this all determined by the acquiring entity?

I am not a bankruptcy attorney, but...

1. Sure. I know of no limits on the number of times a company can go bankrupt. Look at Donald Trump for example.

2. Their liabilities are greater than their assets.

3. Of course not. Who could ever declare bankruptcy if this were the case. Everyone would be forced to liquidate.

4. Ultimately, it is up to the court. What benefits the creditors the most.

I find it hard to believe that if US goes into bankrupty again it won't liquidate. Who would want to invest in them and in Tempe?

By the way, I recall reading an article that someone is buying the Eastern name and hoping to re-start the airline out of Miami in 2009.
 
I am not a bankruptcy attorney, but...

1. Sure. I know of no limits on the number of times a company can go bankrupt. Look at Donald Trump for example.

Better go back to school,there US1FARE, although I do like your posts......... 🙂
 
I haven't found an answer yet to the question regarding the filing of multiple reorganizations and eventually not being able to file reorganization any longer. It seems to me I once read something about two reorganizations and then you must liquidate, however I question whether that is indeed true and/or enforceable concerning a corporate entity. Why? Because when most corporations are reorganized the old company goes away and a new corporate identity is taken and new stock is issued. Therefore, the entity that previously filed reorganization no longer exists and the corporation now filing reorganization is before the court for only the first time. Forget that US Airways kept the same public name. That can be bought and sold between the old corporation and the acquiring corporation as an asset divestiture. The corporate identity is what matters for the purpose of a bankruptcy filing.


I did find out two interesting things however. One, key executive management compensation is significantly to severely limited and key employees may not exceed 10 times the mean key employment retention payments to non-management employees during the calendar year in which the compensation is sought and the key employees must have bone fide offers from other employers. Two, the time allowed in reorganization has been significantly reduced so that a corporation cannot stay in reorganization for any great length of time. The discretion of the bankruptcy judge to keep extending the exclusivity period has been reigned in.
 
Better go back to school,there US1FARE, although I do like your posts......... 🙂
Maybe...but, I think you are answering a different question...will the court allow them to reorganize or force them to liquidate.
 
Maybe...but, I think you are answering a different question...will the court allow them to reorganize or force them to liquidate.
Ok, I'm not a lawyer so I hope this is the right answer. Unfortunately, my company has had quite a number of our customers file chapter 11, so I have some experience here. We have a legal department in my company, so I can probably easily get answers to these questions, but not until monday. Here is what I do know...

It would not make sense to enter into a chapter 11 until a company really hits bankruptcy as the last resort. A company would generally only go into chapter 11 after it has lost all of its operating cash OR needs protection to prevent the loss of the remaining cash. This is basically when the company can no longer make payroll or there is some payment looming on the horizon. It basically renders all collections, leases, agreements, etc "on hold" until both the company and creditors can make proposals to the court.

So lets say US needs to reduce capacity immediately but is in contracts with regional carriers. It is the regionals that are causing the fast depletion of cash. Filing a chapter 11 will put these contracts up for review in the bankruptcy court, but in exchange... the entire company must be reorganized, not just these agreements.

Another case... US cant pay the leases on its planes and the creditor says they will take them back. chapter 11 would stop them from being able to do this until the court hearings.

US needs to reduce its fleet, and the union contracts say that they cant go below a certain number. Chapter 11 would allow these contracts to be reviewed in the courts.

A chapter 11 would also VOID ALL FUEL HEDGES... Another reason why it doesnt make a lot of sense.

So why isnt this the first choice? generally your CEO and executive team OWN a large portion of the company. Chapter 11 will basically render their ownership of shares valueless. A public company will immediately "delist" and move to the OTC. The stock is now valueless... basically. anyone who owned it will lose out. Institutions, banks, executives, pension plans, etc. The only way it would re-emerge with a value would be if at the end of the day, the assets greatly exceeded the actual debt, but if this were the case, you would never file in the first place...

When it goes to court, as part of the reorg, everyone that has obligations and everyone that has ownership goes into court review. The courts decide one of two things, if it makes more sense to reorganize and emerge under a new ticker symbol and retain the assets and emerge with new partnerships and agreements, or change to a chapter 7 and liquidate. the court decides based on what is "better" for everyone involved.

This is why airlines always seem to emerge in tact, with a new ticker symbol. the employees stay on, either on the same contract, or without a contract that needs to be renewed, or has been changed. the leased planes stay with the "new airline" and all new terms are negotiated. the employees lose their pensions, etc. airlines almost always would reemerge, but only because of their size. Say US has a fleet of 300, hypothetically... The bankruptcy court would need to determine, could they liquidate 300 planes? Bank of America, Wells Fargo, or the lessors wont have any use for that many of them. In this case, the airline probably reemerges. If the airline had a fleet of 10 planes... It would probably end up in chapter 7, and all the assets liquidated.

the short answer, no liquidation unless chapter 7 is filed. this is the complete liquidation of the company.

no chapter 11 unless there is some type of liability that MUST be changed in order for the company to stay in business.

otherwise, everyone loses.
 
This is moved by me from a closed thread and I believe it is appropriate to answer the question asked by Bear96 here.

QUOTE (hp_fa @ May 30 2008, 06:38 PM)
I think we are getting close to re-regulation and/or changes to anti-trust revisions pertaining to the entire industry.


Bear96 asked:

Why do you think that? I have heard no such talk from politicians on Capitol Hill.

My response:

My reason for thinking this is that it is my opinion that we now have passed the point of critical mass for this to be a national problem. Airlines have been folding or reorganizing under Chapter 11 like crazy of late. Even American Airlines is having issues that are significant enough to cause them to start charging for a first checked bag and to talk of impending layoffs. Perhaps it can be argued that Southwest is doing OK, but that alone is not enough to ensure the viability of the national airline transportation system.

My concern is that if free market economics are allowed to continue to on their present course, without intervention, some airlines will go out of business and the majority of the rest will be so weakened that they will be in no position to take up the slack, even allowing for the positive effect of reducing capacity from the domestic market.

First, can you define what you mean by "re-regulation"? A lot of airline employees toss the term around as some sort of panacea. I don't think most airline employees know what they mean when they say "reregulation." I am not sure what they mean. Does it mean we go back to the government deciding which routes certain carriers can fly? Government sets the fares for passengers and wages for employees? Why is that good? How will that solve the underlying problem of sky-high oil prices? I don't get it.

I know the current situation seems like a crisis to airline employees, but from the point of view of the rest of the country (i.e., those whose immediate family does not depend on a paycheck from an airline), there really isn't that big of a problem aside from some service-related issues. If a few airlines fold or reorganize, so what? The system is safe, and offers frequent service throughout a dense national network. If some airline employees get laid off, so what? Other companies in other industries are laying people off too. Paying to check a bag - so what? Sure the average traveller will grumble, but like the average airline employee, the average traveller will grumble about everything. Paying to check a bag does not show a need to "reregulate" the industry.

What problems would reregulation solve? Reregulating will not stop air travel from getting more expensive, as that is goind to happen one way or the other with oil prices the way they are. What does it matter if travel gets more expensive by having to pay to check a bag, or through higher ticket prices? Reregulation will not prevent airlines from disappearing, or prevent airline employees from being laid off. If air travel gets more expensive (which it will), that guarantees there will be fewer travellers and likely fewer airlines, and thus fewer employees, reregulation or not.

Reregulation, IMO, would only serve to make the industry even weaker because there would be less motivation to respond to competitive pressures. It would not solve the main problem of high oil prices. Arpey was right when he said the other day that the industry was not built to withstand current oil prices. The only solution is that the cheap seats will have to come out of the system, one way or the other. Period. Yes, the transition will be painful for airline employees, and for some passengers as unprofitable routes are cut and fares go up. Reregulation, whatever that means, will not change these facts, and will not make the process any easier. History has shown the government standing in the way of this inevitable process through more regulation will most likely only mean an even weaker and more uncompetitive industry at the other side of the transition, assuming reregulation implies some sort of "propping up" of weaker players to some degree, as it almost certainly does.
 
If you all remember back a few years ago.....Little Stevie Wonder sold all the assets to raise cash...what does U actually own today? I bet AWA side has/had some assets.....does east?
And also remember.....when they tried to sell the company....all anybody wanted was assets....no employees.....just gates and slots.So where will this go this time?

I know everyone wants to hang onto that slim thread of hope for their companies success and their job security but when the heck does this ever get better?

Since leaving in early '05.....I see nothing has changed much at all,justified by all the threads and gripes on this forum.....its still the same old bag of bull.Another merger floundered by another group of exec's....and I bet soon another round of cuts and givebacks.

Good luck and have fun.

If I had ever been here before I would probably know just what todo
Don't you?
If I had ever been here before on another time around the wheel
I would probably know just how to deal
With all of you.
And I feel
Like I've been here before
Feel
Like I've been here before
And you know
It makes me wonder
What's going on under the ground

Do you know?
Don't you wonder?
What's going on down under you.

We have all been here before
We have all been here before
We have all been here before
We have all been here before
 
Back
Top