maybe U and UAL after all

Tim Nelson

Veteran
Jan 5, 2003
10,919
4,871
Bartlett
www.usaviation.com
According to a Chicago news article [Crains I believe] entitled, UAL, Pilots eye merger option it appears at least possible that United is eyeing a merger as its ticket out of bankruptcy. Of course, who knows at this time, however it is worth reading.
At any rate, here is the link
www.chicagobusiness.com/cgi-bin/news.pl?id=8379

please excuse this post if this article was already posted.

Tim Nelson
 

PHL

Veteran
Aug 20, 2002
1,658
57
Let''s not let this thread go off on a tangent. There''s still a lot of salty wounds from the last attempt.

I read a similar article, but it clearly said that no U.S. airline is in financial condition to undertake a merger with UA. Instead, it pointed to the possibility of a foreign carrier buying up to 25% (limted by regs). I really don''t think Dave and company would go down this road right now.
 

iflyjetz

Senior
Oct 2, 2002
422
0
Tim,
I think that the reporter who wrote this took a portion of UAL''s pilot TA and pulled a ''Chip.'' UAL''s MEC decided to get some protection in case of UAL selling off pieces (or the entire) of the company. It was nothing more than an insurance policy.
I am vehemently opposed to airline mergers of any type, and this one in particular. It isn''t that I hate U employees, but I have yet to see a merge were there isn''t a lot of acrimony between the merged employees. Look at AMR/TWA as the most current example. And how many employees at U who used to work for another carrier still b!tch about how U sucks compared to their old company. I don''t want to spend the rest of my career listening to a bunch of people complain about how they got screwed.
That said, I think that there is no better fit between two companies than U/UAL. I''m a furloughed UAL pilot, so a merge of the two companies probably wouldn''t effect me very much. I''d still get recalled at about the same time. It''s just that I don''t want to go to work 15 years after the merge and listen to people complain about how they got screwed.
 

oldiebutgoody

Veteran
Aug 23, 2002
2,627
945
www.usaviation.com
All that contract stuff does is ensure that UAL will liquidate. All unions have scope and merger protection, and before entering into a protracted legal war, all the acquirer has to do is wait until UAL goes "belly up", then pick up the pieces.
 

iflyjetz

Senior
Oct 2, 2002
422
0
----------------
On 3/31/2003 8:30:52 PM oldiebutgoody wrote:

All that contract stuff does is ensure that UAL will liquidate. All unions have scope and merger protection, and before entering into a protracted legal war, all the acquirer has to do is wait until UAL goes "belly up", then pick up the pieces.

----------------​


Now you''re just sounding like others did about U 4 months ago. Let''s see how things look at UAL in 4 months. There''s more than enough cash to make it through at least another year.
 

PITbull

Veteran
Dec 29, 2002
7,784
456
www.usaviation.com
United is not going anywhere. They will be here a long time. They have the luxury of staying in BK for 18 months being they have credit card agreements for a couple of years. During this war event, they can threaten their employees till the cows come in and lessors as well, they will get all to submit....their labor has no 1113 letter to protect from abrogation, so that huge threat/risk is there for them.

Pains me to watch others go through what we have...job losses and concessions that were unprecedented and abounding.
 

oldiebutgoody

Veteran
Aug 23, 2002
2,627
945
www.usaviation.com
You know what? If ALL the airlines had done the downsizing they said they would after 9/11, the airlines would have recovered by now. Instead, only U, that I know of, even came close, and that was due to fears of liquidation. ALL other carriers, even UAL, elected to announce 20% cutbacks, then only cutback 8-10%. Even now, in chapter 11 they haven''t bitten the bullet. I see that AMR announced another 2500 pilots to hit the bricks next year, and I doubt that it will have ANY effect on the bk prospects. I know that the cutbacks have been painful everywhere, especially to those dircectly effected (furloughees), but it would have been far better to do the cuts a year ago, like U did. By now, even with the war and high fuel costs the industry would be in recovery mode, and recalls would be happening rather than more furloughs/bankruptcies/loss of pay & benefits, etc.
 

oldiebutgoody

Veteran
Aug 23, 2002
2,627
945
www.usaviation.com
----------------
On 4/1/2003 3:02:23 PM Fly wrote:

----------------
On 4/1/2003 1:24:49 PM oldiebutgoody wrote:

ALL other carriers, even UAL, elected to announce 20% cutbacks, then only cutback 8-10%. ----------------​

UAL cut back all right. Went from 100,000 employees to 70,000.


----------------​
Hmm,
United's website lists MANY more...
Corporate Profile
UAL Corporation is the holding company for United Airlines, the second largest air carrier in the world. With hubs in Chicago, Denver, Los Angeles, San Francisco and Washington, D.C., and key international gateways in Tokyo, London, Frankfurt, Miami and Toronto, United flies to 117 destinations in 26 countries. United's 84,000-plus employees worldwide bring people together safely, conveniently and efficiently more than 1,800 times a day....

That's right from their website. Better check your numbers. And I wasn't referring to numbers of employees, but capacity of service.
 

Fly

Veteran
Mar 7, 2003
2,644
2
Visit site
----------------
On 4/1/2003 1:24:49 PM oldiebutgoody wrote:

ALL other carriers, even UAL, elected to announce 20% cutbacks, then only cutback 8-10%. ----------------​

UAL cut back all right. Went from 100,000 employees to 70,000.
 

oldiebutgoody

Veteran
Aug 23, 2002
2,627
945
www.usaviation.com
----------------
On 3/31/2003 11:44:37 PM PITbull wrote:


United is not going anywhere. They will be here a long time. They have the luxury of staying in BK for 18 months being they have credit card agreements for a couple of years. During this war event, they can threaten their employees till the cows come in and lessors as well, they will get all to submit....their labor has no 1113 letter to protect from abrogation, so that huge threat/risk is there for them.

Pains me to watch others go through what we have...job losses and concessions that were unprecedented and abounding.


----------------​
I wouldn''t bet on it, and neither is Wall Street. All they have to do is miss one covenant (and they are in default on several) and they are DONE! I, personally, hope that they make it, and that no more jobs are lost in this industry. Looking at it logically, though, tells me that unless UAL and AMR make the painful choices that MUST be made for them to survive (and to date they have just "touched" them), a major player WILL liquidate sometime this year. The only thing that will save them, and U as well, is a MUCH stronger economy, with a lot of businesses and individuals competing for higher priced seats. It was the ridiculous overcapacity of the late ''80s and ''90s that killed this industry, not just 9/11 or the war in Iraq.
 

RowUnderDCA

Veteran
Oct 6, 2002
2,123
1
www.usaviation.com
Hmmm. Well, it seems to me that LH''s concern is connectivity to the USA, but more importantly, maintaining the preference of Mileage Plus flyers for Luthansa and other Star Alliance members.

Three things happened this week (so far)

1) DL/CO/NW got re-approval presenting a potential DL/CO/NW/KLM/AF/Alitalia/CSA etc alliance!

2) LH''s two alliance partners in North America are now in bankruptcy.

3) LH''s future alliance partner (U) emerged from bankruptcy.

I don''t for a minute think that LH wants to merge with UAL. But they may want to do something to preserve those FF preferences to fly on Star Alliance. How they would do that, I don''t know.
 

oldiebutgoody

Veteran
Aug 23, 2002
2,627
945
www.usaviation.com
----------------
On 4/1/2003 4:03:56 PM Fly wrote:

UNITED AIRLINES
Active Employees Headcount As of 2003-03-29

Division Total

Chrmn Ofc 11
Corp Affrs 222
Finance 757
HR 447
I.S.D. 1335
Law 36
Marketing 63
Planning 198
Arpt Ops 18873
Cargo 2169
Corp Sfty 491
Flt Ops 8946
Maint Ops 10494
Onboard 19218
Rsrvn 3760
Sales 362
UAL Svc 80
Intl 40
Atlantic 1451
Latin Amer 1011
Pacific No 493
Pacific So 684
CU 221
ULS 308
Unclasifid 9

TOTAL 71679

* Includes Meteorologist, Flight Dispatchers, Security Officers, Food Service Employees, Fleet Technical Instructors and Maintenance Instructors.
This information is updated weekly.



Is this specific enough?



----------------​
Then the cutback was from 84,000 to 72,000. Still not even close to 20%
 

Fly

Veteran
Mar 7, 2003
2,644
2
Visit site
UNITED AIRLINES
Active Employees Headcount As of 2003-03-29

Division Total

Chrmn Ofc 11
Corp Affrs 222
Finance 757
HR 447
I.S.D. 1335
Law 36
Marketing 63
Planning 198
Arpt Ops 18873
Cargo 2169
Corp Sfty 491
Flt Ops 8946
Maint Ops 10494
Onboard 19218
Rsrvn 3760
Sales 362
UAL Svc 80
Intl 40
Atlantic 1451
Latin Amer 1011
Pacific No 493
Pacific So 684
CU 221
ULS 308
Unclasifid 9

TOTAL 71679

* Includes Meteorologist, Flight Dispatchers, Security Officers, Food Service Employees, Fleet Technical Instructors and Maintenance Instructors.
This information is updated weekly.



Is this specific enough?
 

iflyjetz

Senior
Oct 2, 2002
422
0
----------------
On 4/1/2003 3:28:05 PM oldiebutgoody wrote:

United''s 84,000-plus employees worldwide bring people together safely, conveniently and efficiently more than 1,800 times a day....

That''s right from their website. Better check your numbers. And I wasn''t referring to numbers of employees, but capacity of service.

----------------​

Hmmm. You have absolutely NO idea what you''re talking about. UAL had more than 2500 daily flights pre-911. They dropped below 1800 and have added some flights to be just over 1800 daily. Call it a cutback of 700 flights/day. Now, perhaps you''re not very good at math, but 700/2500 is 28%. Last time I checked, 28% is more than 20%. There was a smaller reduction in ASM due to more short haul flights being dropped from the schedule than long haul flights.
Oldybutgoodie, I could take the time to point you to links, but I get the impression that you don''t want to let facts get in the way of a good argument (such as your vague reference to UAL being in default on DIP covenants, which is blatently false).
 

Fly

Veteran
Mar 7, 2003
2,644
2
Visit site
Well 84000 to 72000 as of December 2002 would be correct.....except you forgot all the 20,000 others who were furloughed in sept 2001. 104,000 to 72,000.