Interesting Bk Filings

[BoeingBoy]

Another interesting tidbit - this one concerning the PBGC. As settlement for their unsecured claim they'll get $13.5 million cash, an unsecured note for $10 million at 6% interest, and approximately 70% of the "new" stock reserved for the unsecured creditors.

Jim

 

[legacy-to-LCC]

many thanks, usair begins with u!
yeah, dangerous territory, to be sure...this proposed transaction sounds more desperate than calculated?
nevertheless, our 76s communicate a perception to our passengers, sorry, customers (or whatever the pc term is these days)...
again, thanks for simplifying the simple. scary!!!

 

[ClueByFour]

The B767s could be replaced by A330s and the A350s used for growth. Moreover, there could be a lot of used B767-300s coming into the used aircraft market with favorable lease terms in the not-to-distant future.

[post="286738"][/post]​

Of course, by that logic it's entirely possible that a whole slew of 320 series aircraft, plus some 733/4 and a few A330s will be hitting the market.

UA is trying to exit bankruptcy without returning more planes. US already had GECAS take care of it for them (taking back aircraft).

 

[USA320Pilot]

Many informed people I speak with believe GECAS is forcing a systematic liquidation of U.S. network airline capacity, which started at US Airways and then to much lesser extent America West Airlines.

Now GECAS, ILF, and other lessors are likely going to do the same thing at United Airlines with the potential for about 130 aircraft removed from the Chicago-based company's fleet of 460 aircraft. With the U.S. bankruptcy court trustee objecting to the company trying to conduct secret negotiations with aircraft lessors, this move will place even greater pressure on the carrier.

See Story

Moreover, I believe it is almost a certainty that Delta Air Lines and Northwest Airlines will file for a "judicial reorganization" before October 18, with the possibility of it occuring to the Eagan-based airline later this month and for the Atlanta-based airline in mid-September.

With these companies all in bankruptcy at the same, we could see 250 to 350 more aircraft removed from legacy carrier fleet plans.

Regards,

USA320Pilot

 

[ClueByFour]

Anything regarding a last minute attempt at a bonus payout for the rats leaving the executive ship?

Keep your eyes open.

[post="286667"][/post]​

http://www.charlotte.com/mld/charlotte/business/12336537.htm

Looks like they are going in for the land grab. I'm still looking for the actual filing.

It's in the latest amended disclosure statment. They look to be going in whole-hog for the terms of the original filing (docket 2125, IIRC) for the people on the document U-6.

This includes such luminaries as Carstairs, Crellin, Chiames (our favourite Designated Liar) and others. Unreal.

 

[ClueByFour]

With these companies all in bankruptcy at the same, we could see 250 to 350 more aircraft removed from legacy carrier fleet plans.

[post="286770"][/post]​

So? It's not as if the new US is going to get any of them. GECAS, ILM and others are forcing the removal of aircraft from both sides. You said:

Moreover, there could be a lot of used B767-300s coming into the used aircraft market with favorable lease terms in the not-to-distant future.

The inference taken from that statement is that US/HP might get their hands on some. Highly unlikely.

If that was not the intended point of the latter statement, I apologize.

 

[Bear96]

So? It's not as if the new US is going to get any of them. GECAS, ILM and others are forcing the removal of aircraft from both sides. You said:
The inference taken from that statement is that US/HP might get their hands on some. Highly unlikely.

If that was not the intended point of the latter statement, I apologize.

[post="286883"][/post]​

Of course it was the point.

It was just phrased vaguely enough so that if it does happen, the stage is set for a slew of "Who first predicted..." postings, and if it doesn't happen, he didn't really commit to anything.

🙄

 

[NAPAUS]

Except for the "Your Fault" column each month in Attache.

[post="286708"][/post]​

:down: :down: :down: That not the Deborah Thompson i've met. She needs to go as well, just part of the CCY cronies, they ALL need to be history. Anyword oh Sherrie and Cheryl from Inflight, those two dont have a CLUE... Hopefully they are history as well.

 

[MrAeroMan]

Funny you should mention that, Bob......

Nothing specific, but a list of 24 officers who will receive "modified employment contracts".

List

And again no specifics, but these (among lots of other) plans:

US Airways, Inc. Management Employee Severance Benefit Policy
US Airways, Inc. Severance Benefit Policy for Managing Directors
US Airways, Inc. Transaction Retention Payment Plan
US Airways Group, Inc. 2003 Nonemployee Director Stock Incentive Plan
US Airways Group, Inc. 2003 Nonemployee Director Deferred Stock Unit Plan
US Airways Funded Executive Defined Contribution Plan
US Airways Unfunded Executive Defined Contribution Plan
USAir, Inc. Supplemental Executive Defined Contribution Plan
Allegheny Airlines, Inc. Executive Savings Plan
PSA Airlines, Inc. Executive Savings Plan

Complete list

Jim

[post="286672"][/post]​

Why is Al Crellin receiving a new contract to retain him when he's already been named to the new entity?
So let me try to understand this like Senior Management at CCY would explain it. UAIR is retaining him so they make sure he remains retained or are they retaining his retainer to make sure he remains retained despite his agreement to remain retained unless he's fails to remain retained as previously agreed upon then he'd be eligible to be retained on the new retainer so he can be retained all over again... :blink: :huh: :unsure:

 

[Dog Wonder]

That is a good question.

Why is Al Crellin on the list?

 

[Cosmo]

Now GECAS, ILF, and other lessors are likely going to do the same thing at United Airlines with the potential for about 130 aircraft removed from the Chicago-based company's fleet of 460 aircraft. With the U.S. bankruptcy court trustee objecting to the company trying to conduct secret negotiations with aircraft lessors, this move will place even greater pressure on the carrier.

See Story

Much to your chagrin, I'm sure, it now looks like United will not be the source of US Airways' possible "growth" in widebody aircraft. See this United press release issued this afternoon that indicates that nearly all lease negotiations are now complete, subject only to bankruptcy court approval. These planes are now almost certainly going to stay with United, and US Airways will have to look elsewhere for additional widebodies.

But even before today's press release was issued, your argument was weakened by the fact that it was based on an opinion piece in the Denver Post, not a factual accounting of events at United. Of course, you left out that little tidbit of information, didn't you? I'm shocked, I tell you, absolutely shocked that you would do such a thing!

 

[Cosmo]

See this United press release ...

Edited to correct the link.

 

[USA320Pilot]

Cosmo:

Ah, I am not surprised your back. You only venture over to the US Airways board to dispute my posts because they're too painful for you. That's o.k. -- I understand it because nobody likes what is happening to the airline industry.

In regard to my comments, they came from people involved in the discussions because United made significant cure payments and other concessions to keep their planes. Moreover, the company still cannot articulate a POR or Disclosure Statement because the plan is not confirmable, yet.

This could lead to further assets sales as we move forward because I understand that just like with the ATSB loan guarantee application, the company's revenue projections are to high and their fuel assumptions are to low.

Nonetheless, this board is about US Airways -- not UAL -- and if you desire to discuss UAL I believe it would be prudent to do so the UAL board. Finally, I have no ill will towards UAL or its employees, however, my primary concern is for the new US Airways and its stakeholders, including employees, its customers, and new shareholders, just like you feel the same about UAL.

Regards,

USA320Pilot

 

[Cosmo]

Cosmo:

Ah, I am not surprised your back.

I never went away, I just haven't posted here in a while.

You only venture over to the US Airways board to dispute my posts because they're too painful for you. That's o.k. -- I understand it because nobody likes what is happening to the airline industry.

Wow, your ego is truly out of control! Do you honestly believe that the only reason people "dispute" your posts is because they are "in pain" or are "in denial" or have other similar "troubles"? Do you honestly not comprehend why others don't unquestioningly bow to your "supreme knowledge" of the airline industry and your wealth of "insider" contacts? Get over yourself -- you're not the only one who knows about, and has contacts in, the airline industry! And incidentally, you don't know anything about me, so save the psychobabble about "understanding" my "pain" for someone else.

In regard to my comments, they came from people involved in the discussions because United made significant cure payments and other concessions to keep their planes. Moreover, the company still cannot articulate a POR or Disclosure Statement because the plan is not confirmable, yet.

Just because United has not briefed you on their plan does not mean that it doesn't exist or it is not confirmable. But at least you're finally admitting that United will keep its airplanes.

This could lead to further assets sales as we move forward because I understand that just like with the ATSB loan guarantee application, the company's revenue projections are to high and their fuel assumptions are to low.

This is nothing but conjecture on your part. You haven't a clue about what might, or might not, be in United's plan because you haven't seen it! And clearly, that frustrates you tremendously as shown by the constant belittling of United in your posts.

Nonetheless, this board is about US Airways ...

My post did indeed relate to US Airways. You made the thinly-veiled comment about United's B767-300ERs becoming available on the used aircraft market to boost US Airways widebody fleet, and I simply pointed out that, based on United's agreement with its aircraft lessors (subject to bankruptcy court approval), those aircraft were now not going to be the source of any widebody growth at US Airways. Sounds related to me.

 

[USA320Pilot]

Cosmo:

That's your interpretation -- US Airways has looked at adding B767 aircraft to its fleet for long-thin European flying instead of the B757, whether they're rejected by United or anybody else. The company's marketing and planning department has identified 8 markets that a B767, if obtained "on the cheap", would outperform a B757.

My comment was about other company's too, not just United, that may lose aircraft with GECAS and other companies orchestrating a systematic reduction of legacy carrier flying.

In regard to United and its fleet plan, at US Airways we continued to see aircraft leave the fleet as our restructuring unfolded, and yesterday's UAL deal could be easily undone too, with current energy prices, revenue problems, and the inability so far to submit a confirmable POR to the court.

Don't take this personal, it's simply about business and the industry restructuring.

Regards,

USA320Pilot