How Much Of A Profit Would Have U Made?

[PITbull]

FWAAA,

I believe if you first learn how to read, you will get that I said that in my post.

The co. has the money, thay just aren't showing a profit, and did have the money to pay the pension plans with that cash. Period, genius.

 

[cavalier]

Your humble opinion...I'm too young to retire...you must be thinking of someone else.

[post="169532"][/post]​

I am sure I am, but stepping aside wouldn't kill anyone under constant and extreme stress, unless of course one is an android.

 

[NeedForSpeedNFS]

I am sure I am, but stepping aside wouldn't kill anyone under constant and extreme stress, unless of course one is an android.

[post="169535"][/post]​

start another thread you two!!!!!

 

[ktflyhome]

I have really tried to sit back lately and observe and keep from commenting on much. I have been taking in everyday, what everyone has been posting and trying to define it all and make sense of it all.

I have seen many put the "regulars" down. Such as the the famous "5" as flyboi so aptly puts it.

These boards frankly come down to just a few, Piney Bob, 700UW, El Capitan, Cav, and Pitbull, who think that what they have to say is the ultimate. As much as I hate to agree with USfiboi...he is correct with the Fab 5.

Fortunately, I admire many others on this board a hellava lot more than these 5. I Like reading Dillagas, Itrade, Boeing Boy, Arosmith, Delldude, firstamendment, High Iron, Dea Carta, Hulla Girl, Golden 1, EL WN, funguy1, just to name a few. What is really interesting to me, is that many of you have such opposite fews, but don't act like you are God. I thank you for all you have contributed with an openmind and many that I have overlooked for your input and your insight.

Each and everyone of you has something interesting and important to say. Sorry, if I left anyone out. I am just really tired of seeing the same old egos and hypocracy of the Fab 5. I continue to come on these board to see different points of view of few and opinions, from those who really have something to offer.

Of course, I imagine, that those that think "THE KNOW IT ALL", think I am a nobody. <_<

 

[NeedForSpeedNFS]

You forgot the most important contributor, 320pilot, who brings much common sense to these boards, but also takes the most abuse!!! You go 320!!

correction, I see you mentioned El Capitan, i assume you meant 320. my original post still stands!!

 

[ktflyhome]

el Capitan is A320, I certainly didn't leave him out.

 

[BoeingBoy]

kt,

"Of course, I imagine, that those that think "THE KNOW IT ALL", think I am a nobody."

Now be honest - have you ever known a pilot who doesn't think that they do in fact "know it all"?

For me - I may wrap it up all nice in non-confrontational language but I'll admit I fit the "profile".

And if you can't hang on in PIT, by all means do come down and fly with us "Bubba's" in the "Hubba Bubba".

Jim

 

[NeedForSpeedNFS]

el Capitan is A320, I certainly didn't leave him out.

[post="169546"][/post]​

i corrected kitty, scroll up

 

[PITbull]

kt,

I started this thread, you can always delete, or ignore button.

Simple soultion for your bordom of we 5. As you find us unstimulating, there are many on here that feel the same way of you, but just don't come out and say it.

We attempt to be more respectful of posters who basically same the same things over and over again, on the opposite view point, and we try (not always successful) in not getting personal (which you have just done)

Again, don't have to bother with this thread. No one is twisting your wrist.

 

[UseYourHead]

LookBob,

When I see something like this being floated,I will call PitBull, or anyone on it. She knows darn well the company is bleeding, and was putting out this garbage anyway.

Not trusting the management is one thing, PitBull putting out this fod is just as bad as the company not telling the truth. Two wrongs do not make a right.

Nuff said from me on this subject.

First if you lived up to your screen name and used your head you'll note preciesly what PITbull said "The financial reports we got from our analyst does not present what ALPA's doom and gloom scene does" She also went on to point out that US's figures are always slanted. Which in negotiations is no surprise to any of us. What is clear is that a lot of people don't trust US Airways much.

[post="169570"][/post]​

 

[repeet]

Most all of the Mechanic and Related that I know have come to PITbull's very same conclusion. I hear it discussed everywhere I go.

 

[PITbull]

UYH,

I am going to address you and FWAAA funny accounting principles...

The $250 million to pay down the ATSB loan that was not due until 2006, is precious funds the co. could have kept on hand.

To make such a payment on the ATSB loan, when it was not called, and then 3 months later tell labor (IAM and AFA) and indicate to the PBGC that they can't make the pension liability and may terminate them is down right deceitful, however, predictable of such a company.

I could care less how you and others want to think in your math minds and appropriate these funds on the balance sheet. But, it makes more logic than any kind of accounting principles that when you are "cash sensitive"...you hold on to your cash.

If you are speaking of the debt U has, then U shouldn't be reporting ANY profits until the ATSB and the rest of the creditors are paid in full.

So, give me a break, pal for exposing it. I am not going to sit idlely by and pretend this issue is of no consequence and that it didn't happen just to make you and those like you continue to live in your fantasy land and ignore the pension liability and make excuses why its not been paid for 2003 and 2004.

In case you haven't been brought up to speed yet, and too busy trying to look for ways to discredit what I post, the company claims it might miss the covenants because of the pension liability. So, if I were a co. that was "cash sensitive", would I throw the funds to pay off the ATSB two years early???????

This is the reason for the thread.

PS: Oh, btw, the co. reported a $34 million profit, but owes (a new figure and some how reduced over night ) $67 million on thier pension liability. Again, I don't believe the co. would have been in such a predicament to miss covenants if they didn't appropriate all those funds to the ATSB.

 

[ITRADE]

UYH,

I am going to address you and FWAAA funny accounting principles...

The $250 million to pay down the ATSB loan that was not due until 2006, is precious funds the co. could have kept on hand.

They could have kept the cash, and even funded the pension, but by paying down $250MM in ATSB debt they reduced the minimum cash requirements that ATSB required US Airways carry - to about $750MM IIRC. Had US not done this, US's required cash on hand obligation would have been $1.0 billion - a number that based upon fuel prices, historical loads, and seasonality may very well have been broken in Q4 2004 or early Q1 2005. Violating that covenant would have defaulted US on the loan and would have led to very, very grave consequences.

To make such a payment on the ATSB loan, when it was not called, and then 3 months later tell labor (IAM and AFA) and indicate to the PBGC that they can't make the pension liability and may terminate them is down right deceitful, however, predictable of such a company.

The issue here is who can force a bankruptcy. IAM and AFA cannot. The ATSB can and very possibly would.

I could care less how you and others want to think in your math minds and appropriate these funds on the balance sheet. But, it makes more logic than any kind of accounting principles that when you are "cash sensitive"...you hold on to your cash.

US used available cash to work down legal and defaultable obligations that posed the greatest risk to the company. Would you rather have a $1.0 billion debt covenant level or a $750MM debt covenant?

If you are speaking of the debt U has, then U shouldn't be reporting ANY profits until the ATSB and the rest of the creditors are paid in full.

This makes it clear that you really, really need to take an Accounting 101 class. Debt obligations do not make up an income/P&L statement - with the minor, minor exception of interest expense (BTW, total quarterly interest expense was $57MM for the quarter.). It certainly is a function of the balance sheet (A=L+OE) and the statement of cash flows, but has essentially NO effect on income. As others have mentioned, the only effect on income is whatever retained interest earnings US would have earned had they kept the $250MM in the bank and earned - say 3% on the earnings.

So, give me a break, pal for exposing it. I am not going to sit idlely by and pretend this issue is of no consequence and that it didn't happen just to make you and those like you continue to live in your fantasy land and ignore the pension liability and make excuses why its not been paid for 2003 and 2004.

It is an issue of no consequence. At least three or four people have told you this. You simply refuse to listen.

PS: Oh, btw, the co. reported a $34 million profit, but owes (a new figure and some how reduced over night ) $67 million on thier pension liability. Again, I don't believe the co. would have been in such a predicament to miss covenants if they didn't appropriate all those funds to the ATSB.

Again, liability and net incomes are not the same thing. Liability and debt owed by the company is in the billions - as it is with most companies. Nucor has $2.15 billion in liabilities, but that does not prevent them from operating.

 

[UseYourHead]

PitBull,

Did you forget that the reason we paid down the loan by 250 million was because we were in default of the loan covenants, and in doing so we renegotiated the them allowing more breathing room?

It is the same problem we approach again in September.... old news I am sure for an AFA rep. (I would hope anyway).

UYH,

I am going to address you and FWAAA funny accounting principles...

The $250 million to pay down the ATSB loan that was not due until 2006, is precious funds the co. could have kept on hand.

To make such a payment on the ATSB loan, when it was not called, and then 3 months later tell labor (IAM and AFA) and indicate to the PBGC that they can't make the pension liability and may terminate them is down right deceitful, however, predictable of such a company.

I could care less how you and others want to think in your math minds and appropriate these funds on the balance sheet. But, it makes more logic than any kind of accounting principles that when you are "cash sensitive"...you hold on to your cash.

If you are speaking of the debt U has, then U shouldn't be reporting ANY profits until the ATSB and the rest of the creditors are paid in full.

So, give me a break, pal for exposing it. I am not going to sit idlely by and pretend this issue is of no consequence and that it didn't happen just to make you and those like you continue to live in your fantasy land and ignore the pension liability and make excuses why its not been paid for 2003 and 2004.

In case you haven't been brought up to speed yet, and too busy trying to look for ways to discredit what I post, the company claims it might miss the covenants because of the pension liability. So, if I were a co. that was "cash sensitive", would I throw the funds to pay off the ATSB two years early???????

This is the reason for the thread.

PS: Oh, btw, the co. reported a $34 million profit, but owes (a new figure and some how reduced over night ) $67 million on thier pension liability. Again, I don't believe the co. would have been in such a predicament to miss covenants if they didn't appropriate all those funds to the ATSB.

[post="169615"][/post]​

 

[funguy2]

I could care less how you and others want to think in your math minds and appropriate these funds on the balance sheet. But, it makes more logic than any kind of accounting principles that when you are "cash sensitive"...you hold on to your cash.

If you are speaking of the debt U has, then U shouldn't be reporting ANY profits until the ATSB and the rest of the creditors are paid in full.

...

PS: Oh, btw, the co. reported a $34 million profit, but owes (a new figure and some how reduced over night ) $67 million on thier pension liability. Again, I don't believe the co. would have been in such a predicament to miss covenants if they didn't appropriate all those funds to the ATSB.

[post="169615"][/post]​

You clearly do not understand accounting, no matter how many times its explained to you. Even after it is explained to you, you continue to not believe it. You might as well not believe that George W. Bush is president, just because you don't agree with the election process, but it doesn't change the fact that he is president. Go to your local community college, take Accounting 101, and you will understand.

1. You are right, that US Airways does need to conserve cash. However, they would have broken the loan covenants, the ATSB would have called the loan, and we would not be here to discuss the potential for missing a pension payment, had US Airways not paid down the ATSB-backed loan. I am sure that the $250mil payment was the minimum they could negotiate. Just because the loan was not publicly called, doesn't mean it would not have been. Management did something barely proactive in this case to keep the company afloat.

2. US Airways MUST show profits in order to REPAY the loan. The loan payments will come from CASH generated by running a PROFITABLE airline. Again, accounting 101.

Here is what the company posted so far:

1Q $177Mil Loss
2Q $34 Mil Profit

First 6 months of 2004: $143Mil Loss.
Second 6 months of 2004: Forecast for more losses.

This company is not profitable. Period. You are misrepresenting the facts as much as USA320Pilot does.