maybe U and UAL after all

[oldiebutgoody]

----------------
On 4/3/2003 2:46:01 AM iflyjetz wrote:

----------------
On 4/2/2003 11:48:29 AM oldiebutgoody wrote:

I'll bet I've forgotten more about chapter 11 than you'll EVER know, and I
just went through one.

The judge is not "god almighty", as you suggest; the law is. Judges ONLY rule on matters which are brought before them.

The matter of the airport trust certificates that UAL elected not to pay HAS NOT YET GONE BEFORE THE JUDGE.

Also, you think U had a problem with pensions, UAL has 2.5 times the number of employees that U has.
----------------​

Oldybutgoody, you should go into standup comedy; you are hilarious. You first made incorrect statements about capacity reduction in this thread and now you're going to prove yourself wrong about UAL's chapter 11 filing? You forgot more about chap 11 than I'll know? You have no idea what my level of knowledge is. BTW, chapter 11 is different than chapter 7 or 13 personal bankruptcy. Although it's possible for individuals to file under chapter 11, it would be highly unusual. But you do have an advantage over me; I've never had to file for personal bankruptcy.
As for the 'airport trust certificates,' there is no such animal. I had to do a search to verify this, since UAL has a large number of different debt instruments. Here's a list for those that want to deal with the Joe Friday facts, not the Cliff Claven facts:

"United has a complex debt structure, consisting of:

$3,100,000,000 of various aircraft-backed mortgages secured
by 87 aircraft;

4,000,000,000 of various aircraft-backed enhanced equipment
trust certificate financings secured by 100
aircraft;

1,800,000,000 of various capital lease obligations with
respect to 69 aircraft;

5,500,000,000 of various operating lease obligations with
respect to 243 aircraft;

646,000,000 owed under six series of senior notes due
between 2003 and 2021 issued under a 1991
Indenture between United Air Lines, Inc., and
the Bank of New York;

1,700,000,000 owed under 18 special facility revenue bond
facilities doe between 2011 and 2035;

97,000,000 of 13.25% Trust Originated Preferred
Securities, called TOPrS; and

200,000,000 of estimated trade debt."

Here's the link: http://www.bankrupt.com/united.txt
Approximately page 4.

UAL is in default on some of the equipment trust certificates, secured by aircraft. UAL has successfully renegotiated with some of bondholders and is in the process of negotiating with others. The equipment trust certificates are secured by aircraft. Aircraft are not exactly selling for a premium right now, so if the creditors want to repossess the aircraft, they're more than welcome to. They can park them in the desert alongside the more than 1000 other aircraft taken out of service since 911.

As for Judge Wedoff, his rulings and statements thus far have been unquestionably clear: his primary purpose is to ensure that UAL survives as a viable corporation. He has interpreted the law in such a manner as to be most beneficial to the survival of United. I don't expect him to rule differently with respect to any bondholders.

While UAL's pensions are underfunded, they are less underfunded than U's pensions were. And UAL's pilots have negotiated a lower pension multiplier on the A fund in their TA (from 1.5% to 1.35% multiplier with a 30 year cap), so the underfunding problem has been reduced. Here's the text:
"Utilizing the current pilot defined benefit plan: 1.35% times
final average pay (highest consecutive 36 months out of the
the120 months immediately preceding retirement), times
years of participation to a maximum of 30 years. Early
retirement reduced 3% per year from age 60."

Here's the link: http://www.flyingcold.com/alpa/Tentative_A...ch27.pdf
See page 21.

Oldybutgoody, you have a tenuous grasp of the facts. In any further correspondance, could you please back up your 'facts' with links? I've got a feeling that I'll be seeing plenty of links from theonion.com.

----------------​

Oh, you're right. There's nothing wrong with the financing at UAL. You know it all, and all the analysts, investment banks, financial markets don't have a clue. If I were you, I'd be sticking to sites like "monster.com" rather than this one. By the way, how many more aren't even listed, like those airport facilities trust certificates (the actual name: special facilities trust certiicates, read this: http://biz.yahoo.com/djus/030401/1724001171_1.html). You may have them listed under the 1.7 BILLION debt due beginning in 2011, but I don't see why that would even be an issue yet. I suggest YOU check that. It's just your kind of arrogance that has gotten UAL where it is today. I think that the 15% overcapacity that Gordon B was talking about yesterday is likely UAL. Hey iflyjets, you are probably gonna need a new screenname, how about something like "isellshoes". What do you think?

 

[oldiebutgoody]

if he wants to dish it out, he'd better learn to take it as well. He's the one that started throwing darts, not me. If his posts reflect the thinking at UAL, they are still in very deep denial. I didn't have wheaties this morning, but the cocoa puffs did have a strange taste....

 

[apofurlough]

As bad as this all seems right now, even the experts think that merger and accuisitions should and will accur. I have to apologise for not having all details but I only caught the tail end of the interview.
An expert on M & A was on CNN Financial this morning and was discussing the airline industry. His feelings were that the industry as a whole would benefit and that the industry was ripe for M & A to occur. He did not go into any specifics on which or who but felt the whole industry was ripe and would benefit.
My question is if a M or A did occur - how could employee mix be handled? What happens with all the furloughed employees - almost every airline has massive furloughs? Would they be brought back over someone currently employed but the acquired airlines current employee? IMO, this would be a whole new can of worms that would spell big trouble for management as I can''t remember it ever having to be addressed before. There is always some problems with merging seniority lists of employees but never with the amount of furlougees now in place in this industry.

 

[iflyjetz]

----------------
On 4/3/2003 6:34:15 AM oldiebutgoody wrote:
Oh, you''re right. There''s nothing wrong with the financing at UAL. You know it all, and all the analysts, investment banks, financial markets don''t have a clue. If I were you, I''d be sticking to sites like "monster.com" rather than this one. By the way, how many more aren''t even listed, like those airport facilities trust certificates (the actual name: special facilities trust certiicates, read this: http://biz.yahoo.com/djus/030401/1724001171_1.html). You may have them listed under the 1.7 BILLION debt due beginning in 2011, but I don''t see why that would even be an issue yet. I suggest YOU check that. It''s just your kind of arrogance that has gotten UAL where it is today. I think that the 15% overcapacity that Gordon B was talking about yesterday is likely UAL. Hey iflyjets, you are probably gonna need a new screenname, how about something like "isellshoes". What do you think?

----------------​

Let''s see what we CAN agree on.
First, you said ''airport trust certificates;'' can we now agree that there is NO such thing?
Second, United is going to argue in front of the bankruptcy judge that the special facility revenue bonds, NOT special facilities trust certificates (as you again incorrectly called them) are unsecured debt, not secured debt.
Third, the article quotes no experts saying that UAL is going to lose the case; it more correctly addresses the future ramifications if UAL (likely) has Judge Wedoff rule in UAL''s favor.

You have continually incorrectly named the bonds in question and misrepresented the likelihood of UAL losing the court ruling. These errors and misrepresentations by you is specifically why I requested links; you''ve Clff Clavened the facts.

As for Gordon Bethune, he has his own agenda. UAL has DIP financiers in place, with additional DIP financiers waiting in the wings SHOULD the original DIP financiers threaten to pull DIP financing (the RSA tactic).

As for my screenname, I suppose that I could change it. It''s still applicable in spite of being furloughed by United. How about ''Idefendamistakenpersonspinkarseinthemilitary'' ? I am now full time in the Air Force.

As for who started this exchange, I suppose that I did. By correcting you on your misstatement about UAL''s reductions. You still haven''t admitted that you''re wrong about that one.

 

[oldiebutgoody]

----------------
On 4/3/2003 7:56:49 AM PineyBob wrote:

----------------
On 4/3/2003 7:53:41 AM oldiebutgoody wrote:

if he wants to dish it out, he''d better learn to take it as well.  He''s the one that started trowing darts, not me. 

----------------​

Well oldie that certainly was a third grader response! I''m telling the teacher you guys aren''t playing nice in the sandbox. I am I''m telling the teacher!

----------------​

Piney,
me or anyone else on this board couldn''t give a healthy you-know-what about your opinion. Just who, exactly, named you to be a judge of anything here? The UAL guys were way more than willing to pile on when U employees were in their deepest need. If you think that maybe I''m bitter, well, yes, I am. I can put any opinion I want here, as long as it meets the board rules. If they don''t like it, then too bad. They can make a civil response, but cannot call names or insult people, which iflyjets clearly did in his response to an earlier post of mine. You and several of the posters on this board are clearly juvenile in emotional development. Now I know why Chip (whom many disagreed with, but always presented good subjects for discussion) and many other reasonable posters have left this board for good. With the level of reasonable exchange of ideas here I will likely do the same.

 

[oldiebutgoody]

Why do I have to state ANYONE''S opinion but my own? That''s what an opinion is. By the way, I''ve done 22+ years in the military myself, so you''re not defending me. Now, if you think that you can in any way convince me or anyone else that UAL will definitely survive this situation that they are in, then start. As for the "special facilities bonds", they are called several things in other articles I''ve read, only one of which I linked to in the article. I have NO plans to turn this into a "linking" contest. If you don''t like what I''ve got to say, tough. Anybody can print numbers from the court documents or annual report, and companies have NEVER stated that stuff to suit their needs, have they? Remember Enron, Worldcom and even more recently AOL. I don''t quote numbers because I''ve been around long enough to know that numbers lie (what''s the old adage? Figures lie and liars figure?) Numbers are absolutely WORTHLESS. If you don''t like people speculating about what is to come for UAL, then STAY OFF OF THIS BOARD! Piney, I don''t need any counseling about my response from you, either.

 

[oldiebutgoody]

----------------
On 4/3/2003 2:30:35 PM PineyBob wrote:

----------------
On 4/3/2003 1:57:21 PM oldiebutgoody wrote:

Piney,
Now you have resorted to the very activity you chastized the UAL posters for doing to you! Why? Do you feel superior when you tear somebody down in order to build yourself up? If that''s the case then Sir I am very sorry for you. I wish you well Oldiebutgoodie, truly I do. But never pretend to speak for anyone other than yourself, I have to many PM''s that refute your position.

----------------​

----------------​

I know Chip, and as for the rest, I was just stating the obvious. I know my worth, and would therefore NEVER make judgements as to the value of another''s argument, as you do continually, Piney. Rather than make a statement, you just elect to throw barbs after others make their statement. I do not wish anyone any harm, but they cannot deprive me of my opinion.