Loan Reapplication

bigbusdrvr

Senior
Mar 2, 2003
366
12
United agrees to scale back aid request
By Caroline Daniel in Chicago
Published: June 22 2004 23:36 | Last Updated: June 22 2004
23:36
United Airlines on Tuesday finalised the terms of its new
application to the federal body overseeing loan guarantees,
agreeing to scale back its request for aid from $1.6bn to $1.1bn,
to seek $500m in private equity and to embark on a new round
of cost cutting.

The proposed terms, set out in a letter to the Airline
Transportation Stabilization Board, which oversees the
guarantees, are designed to support United's request for a
reconsideration of its application. The airline has also agreed to
maintain minimum cash balances of $1.5bn as a condition of the
loan and is proposing to pay it off within five years, not seven,
according to a person familiar with the talks.

The plan, which does not include a specific target on cost cuts,
follows intense discussions between United executives and
officials from the office of John Snow, Treasury secretary, and
the Department of Transportation.

Last week the ATSB turned down United's application. It is
unclear how soon the ATSB will respond to the letter.

The private equity concessions represent a climbdown for
United, which has consistently avoided taking this route. One
person involved in the bankruptcy said: "It almost doesn't matter
now if the ATSB agrees a loan, as it is now clear that Glenn
Tilton [chief executive of United] can't get away with a job half
done. He is going to have to restructure further and cut costs."

The battle over the future of United now lies in the hands of
private equity groups and what conditions they will demand in
return, such as management changes, a new labour deal or
terminating pension plans.

Finding a private equity investor is expected to take months,
pushing United's exit from bankruptcy into next year.

Even if United's new request is turned down by the ATSB, the
airline will have already begun a process of talking to private
equity groups and allowing them to conduct due diligence, since
the biggest detail that could change would be the size of the
investment required from them, according to a person familiar
with the bankruptcy.

One investment banker said potential investors could include
Greenbriar Equity - whose managing partner, Gerald
Greenwald, was a former chairman and chief executive of
United - and Texas Pacific Group, which has the best track
record of any private equity group for its airline investments.

Cerberus Capital Management and Oak Hill Capital Partners
are also active in the sector, offering last week to invest $250m
in Air Canada.

United's revised application could face legal challenges from
other airlines amid charges it has received special treatment.
Dennis Hastert, the influential speaker of the House of
Representatives, called Mr Snow several times before the
Treasury department made the decision to allow the airline to
reapply for the loan guarantee.

Peter Fitzgerald, a senator from Illinois, on Tuesday wrote to
Dennis Schindel, acting inspector-general at the Treasury,
requesting an investigation into whether "inappropriate political
pressure or intimidation has been or is being applied to Mr
Roseboro [the Treasury appointee on the ATSB] to change his
vote . . . This issue is worthy of your consideration because it
goes to the integrity and the credibility of the ATSB."

If United is easily able to find $500m of private equity it could
confirm one of the central arguments the ATSB used to reject
United a week ago - that it has access to the capital markets and
therefore does not need a federal guarantee. "If they can find
$500m in a few weeks, what happens if we give them a few
months? Perhaps they won't need our money at all," said one
government official.

The fact that United is going to have to seek further cost cuts,
especially from labour, could also have a significant impact on
the rest of the airline industry. It could put pressure on Delta's
pilots to agree to concessions soon, in order to avert Delta
executives using any renegotiated deal from United as a new
benchmark.

Northwest, which is also seeking a labour deal, could also
benefit. Jamie Baker, analyst at JP Morgan, said: "The threat that
UAL could establish a new, lower network carrier pay structure
is expected to accelerate pilot negotiations at those two carriers.

"Delta pilots can ill-afford to drag their feet on the current 30 per
cent pay cut proposal, only to have United establish lower rates
in the meantime."
 
TJoe said:
A labor deal? What the hell else can labor do?
Based on what we are suffering through at UAIR:

About 10/15% cut in W2

Work to FAR's

Reevaluate pension obligations

How's that for openers????
 
bigbus,

I think you hit the nail on the head. Right now we are working basically to FAR's at UAL. Our rates are lower than everyone except AA so that might be where ours are headed and the pension is good as gone.

Other than that the ride is not too bad give or take a moderate to severe bump here and there ;)
 
magsau, I think you hit the nail on the head. None of the LCC have a pension plan. The A plan needs to go away to make United strong for the future. We have a choice, a job and no pension or no job and no pension. Let me think about that for a minute.

However, as for cuts. Why don't the wide body guys come down and slum with the narrow body guys with the same work rules and paycuts?
 
herkav8r said:
magsau, I think you hit the nail on the head. None of the LCC have a pension plan. The A plan needs to go away to make United strong for the future. We have a choice, a job and no pension or no job and no pension. Let me think about that for a minute.

However, as for cuts. Why don't the wide body guys come down and slum with the narrow body guys with the same work rules and paycuts?
Sorry, I'll take "no job no pension". I'm not going to be party to the destruction of a promise ade many years ago. Likewise, you'll never see an app with my name at these new style airlines. I'd rather walk away with dignity. I refuse to cheapen this profession any further.
 
>>>>Sorry, I'll take "no job no pension". I'm not going to be party to the destruction of a promise ade many years ago. Likewise, you'll never see an app with my name at these new style airlines. I'd rather walk away with dignity. <<<<

Sure, everyone talks like this at times. I remember when my past airline employers went out of business and guys said "Well, this is it....I'm done with the airlines" etc, etc. Next thing ya know they're at another airline. Southwest had a Captain who was making a fortune doing day trading in the mid to late 90's and he finally quit. He "had enough of hotel rooms" etc. Well, as we all know the bubble burst and he lost his butt. He wanted his job back. SWA told him that since he resigned that he'd have to re-apply. He was a good pilot and great guy so they re-hired him and he had to start all over at the bottom. Guys asked him how he could stand starting all over at the same airline as a new F/O after having had been a Captain there. He said "Go out and try to find a job that pays over $50,000/yr with half-decent benefits at age 48 when all you have ever done is fly airplanes with no background in anything else and you'll find out why".

Of course if you have a fortune built up or a very marketable talent maybe you can pull it off but you're in a minority if you are.
 
You guys are right-on. They are going after the pensions. In return, profit sharing and 401k match/other work incentive methods depending on the workgroup. Busdrvr - I feel your pain (I'm furloughed) but in profitable times, the no pension/profit sharing route can become a win-win situation. Is it as good as a pension......hell no. Do we have a choice........not sure. We're at a fork in the road.


Busdrvr wrote:
"Likewise, you'll never see an app with my name at these new style airlines. I'd rather walk away with dignity. I refuse to cheapen this profession any further. "

The day the first RJ/commuter route took over a mainline route for a major, the profession was cheapened.........we're about 15 years too late. It's sick when you think about it.
 
Of course, one might suggest that if there is such a large supply of pilots and a demand that is smaller than that supply, payscales should fall. This is how economics work.

Yes, UA promised to pay pensions. Yes, they should be legally bound to do so. If they do so, they have every reason to shut the doors when the money's gone paying out those pensions. If the competition can find pilots willing to work for 401k's instead of DBCs, and this reduces their costs to the point where the pension-carrying carriers can no longer operate, that's one of the results of a competitive marketplace.
 
Busdrvr said:
Sorry, I'll take "no job no pension". I'm not going to be party to the destruction of a promise ade many years ago. Likewise, you'll never see an app with my name at these new style airlines. I'd rather walk away with dignity. I refuse to cheapen this profession any further.
Busdriver,
I hope the majority of United pilots feel this way!
 
maddogdriver said:
The day the first RJ/commuter route took over a mainline route for a major, the profession was cheapened.........we're about 15 years too late. It's sick when you think about it.
WTF? So all the customers now served by a RJ should be denied air service simply to maintain pilot wage scales?

I'm all for you guys getting the highest wage possible. You just overplayed your bet.
 
Busdrvr: I was furloughed in December. I have learned a lot about running business and hiring and firing employees. There is a lot of truth on this board about finding a job once you are over 40 with no experience other than flying airplanes. What kind of marketable skills does a 45 year old have that has been flying for the past 20 years have? None for the most part. If the pilot is exmilitary he might have some extra skills he pick up in the military. (i.e. I helped setup and do testing on electronic warefare equipment) However, Joe Smith may have not done anything extra. There are very few exceptions where that pilot is going to get a compatible job. In addition, working in an office leaves a lot to be desired. Dealing with some of the everyday entry level people is enough to make you want to fly for free just to get away from the choas. You will not find to many 80K plus jobs with all the benefits out in the free market looking for an unemployed pilot.

In addition, running a profitable airline has lot to do with controlling costs and generating revenue. If your costs are 15-20% higher than your competition and your product cannot command a premium, then you might as well shut your doors. Pensions cost a lot of money to maintain. I don't think SW has cheapened the job and they don't have pensions. They do have a decent profit sharing and 401k. I would love to work for the benefits SW has.

So it comes down to what are the Union Overlords going to do? Those 50 year old captains have no where to go. It is better to take your pension cut and live to fight another day then to figure out how to pay the mortage on an entry level salary some where else.

Also busdrvr, I enjoy your posts, but if you don't want to cheapen the profession and fly for an airline without all the old benefits then I doubt you will ever fly again. Of course, the military still has pretty good benefits.
 
herk,

I agree with you. In the past few years I have looked at other jobs that might be available so I could take a leave from UAL and do something else for awhile. Unfortunately, I have too much flight time and not enough time pushing papers around an office.

I want a pension. However, I do not see one in the future. Is this enough to get me to walk away? Absolutely not. We all have our breaking points and the pension issue is not mine.

When we were basking in the ESOP shares and the 4/1 split and all the goodies that was to provide. I was realistic enough to know that the money is only good when it is in your hands. Same with my pension when I started. If you look at when pensions were started the airline industry was a different beast, life expectency was much lower and revenues were higher. Heck most pensions were part of the airlines when they were still operating in regulation with revenue sharing amongst the airlines. The playing field has changed and not for the better.

The people that are going to suffer the most are the 45-55 year olds.
 

Latest posts