UAL777flyer
Veteran
- Aug 20, 2002
- 730
- 0
Proof that UA''s competitors fear our restructuring efforts
- Thread starter UAL777flyer
- Start date
UnitedChicago
Veteran
- Aug 27, 2002
- 756
- 0
Don't think United will forget this in the future when the airline recovers and starts growing again.
Look out Bethune, Carty, and Mullins.
Look out Bethune, Carty, and Mullins.
UnitedChicago
Veteran
- Aug 27, 2002
- 756
- 0
It's funny if you compare this airline crisis with the last one (circa 1991-1993). There were doomsday scenarios. All of the majors can't compete against SWA. United prepared a drastic strategy of spinning off the domestic operations intwo 2-3 geographic based carriers that would be low cost and feed UA's international operation.
Then the ESOP proceeded, the economy recovered and everyone biz fares increased.
The economy will recover eventually and will prosper. I know we can't necessarily expect the same boom in terms of biz travel...but it will return.
United will be well on the way towards restructuring. When the economy recovers, biz travel will return. Revenue will be back.
Then the ESOP proceeded, the economy recovered and everyone biz fares increased.
The economy will recover eventually and will prosper. I know we can't necessarily expect the same boom in terms of biz travel...but it will return.
United will be well on the way towards restructuring. When the economy recovers, biz travel will return. Revenue will be back.
[blockquote]
----------------
On 11/25/2002 3
26 PM UnitedChicago wrote:
It's funny if you compare this airline crisis with the last one (circa 1991-1993). There were doomsday scenarios. All of the majors can't compete against SWA. United prepared a drastic strategy of spinning off the domestic operations intwo 2-3 geographic based carriers that would be low cost and feed UA's international operation.
Then the ESOP proceeded, the economy recovered and everyone biz fares increased.
The economy will recover eventually and will prosper. I know we can't necessarily expect the same boom in terms of biz travel...but it will return.
United will be well on the way towards restructuring. When the economy recovers, biz travel will return. Revenue will be back.
----------------
[/blockquote]
Uh, do you mind telling that to the revenue wackos on the ATSB
----------------
On 11/25/2002 3
26 PM UnitedChicago wrote: It's funny if you compare this airline crisis with the last one (circa 1991-1993). There were doomsday scenarios. All of the majors can't compete against SWA. United prepared a drastic strategy of spinning off the domestic operations intwo 2-3 geographic based carriers that would be low cost and feed UA's international operation.
Then the ESOP proceeded, the economy recovered and everyone biz fares increased.
The economy will recover eventually and will prosper. I know we can't necessarily expect the same boom in terms of biz travel...but it will return.
United will be well on the way towards restructuring. When the economy recovers, biz travel will return. Revenue will be back.
----------------
[/blockquote]
Uh, do you mind telling that to the revenue wackos on the ATSB
UnitedChicago
Veteran
- Aug 27, 2002
- 756
- 0
Ha. I'd love to!
Any news coming out of WHQ or ATSB today??
Also...the NYT article implies UA will be phasing out some or many of the 747400? Seems like a no brainer. Does anyone think they'll get rid of all of them? They have 47 747400's. They are reducing fleet by another 49. Maybe all 18 7672's and 31 of the 47 7474's?
Any news coming out of WHQ or ATSB today??
Also...the NYT article implies UA will be phasing out some or many of the 747400? Seems like a no brainer. Does anyone think they'll get rid of all of them? They have 47 747400's. They are reducing fleet by another 49. Maybe all 18 7672's and 31 of the 47 7474's?
Not that UAL does not have another way of rasing some serious cash, after all UAL owns plenty of valuable assets, which even in this economic climate would go at a premium.
The goverment sadly decided to open the purse and since AWA received the loan guarantee, IMHO UAL and US will be granted approval as well. Not that it helps the industry, but it does help the affected companies, at least for the short term.
The goverment sadly decided to open the purse and since AWA received the loan guarantee, IMHO UAL and US will be granted approval as well. Not that it helps the industry, but it does help the affected companies, at least for the short term.
UnitedChicago
Veteran
- Aug 27, 2002
- 756
- 0
I disagree that the ATSB was a mistake.
Yea yea yea...sure United had problems prior. But come on. Their was an unprecedented terrorist attack that the world has never seen before. They manipulated the aviation and airline industry to achieve their goal.
That is obviously no airline's fault...certainly not United's.
Oh some will retort that security was lax and it was their fault. Well, the government - namely Bush's administration - was sitting on intellgince indicating an attack was possible. They did not connect the dots. Did they ever issue an alert to US airlines that planes could be used as missles? I don't think so. Condi Rice was saying weeks after the attack words to the effect of no one could have ever imagined that hijackers would use airplanes as weapons.
I don't think people realize that timing was an issue here. All airlines - namely AA and UA - have good periods...labor harmony, profitability, etc. and have bad periods. UA just happened to be in the middle of a really bad period. What if AA was going through what UA was at the time of the attacks? I think that it's entirely possible that the shoe could have been on the other foot.
UA recently give pilots increases (a mistake...i know...thanks goodwin) and was close to an industry leading iam contract. Where's AA? They were just beginning to negotiate with their pilots and their machinists. It was bad timing for UA.
So I strongly disagree that the ATSB loan program was a bad mistake. I certainly also disagree that granting a loan to UA will delay an industry recovery.
I've held my tongue on what I'm about to say because it's out there. BUT...with recent revelations that the government had information that - had they pieced it together - might have prevented the attack...who is to say that United and American shouldn't sue the fed govt for losses incurred?
Yea yea yea...sure United had problems prior. But come on. Their was an unprecedented terrorist attack that the world has never seen before. They manipulated the aviation and airline industry to achieve their goal.
That is obviously no airline's fault...certainly not United's.
Oh some will retort that security was lax and it was their fault. Well, the government - namely Bush's administration - was sitting on intellgince indicating an attack was possible. They did not connect the dots. Did they ever issue an alert to US airlines that planes could be used as missles? I don't think so. Condi Rice was saying weeks after the attack words to the effect of no one could have ever imagined that hijackers would use airplanes as weapons.
I don't think people realize that timing was an issue here. All airlines - namely AA and UA - have good periods...labor harmony, profitability, etc. and have bad periods. UA just happened to be in the middle of a really bad period. What if AA was going through what UA was at the time of the attacks? I think that it's entirely possible that the shoe could have been on the other foot.
UA recently give pilots increases (a mistake...i know...thanks goodwin) and was close to an industry leading iam contract. Where's AA? They were just beginning to negotiate with their pilots and their machinists. It was bad timing for UA.
So I strongly disagree that the ATSB loan program was a bad mistake. I certainly also disagree that granting a loan to UA will delay an industry recovery.
I've held my tongue on what I'm about to say because it's out there. BUT...with recent revelations that the government had information that - had they pieced it together - might have prevented the attack...who is to say that United and American shouldn't sue the fed govt for losses incurred?
MrMarky
Advanced
[blockquote]
----------------
The FBI in May 02 warned that Islamic extremists have smuggled shoulder
fired rockets into the USA.32 commercial have been brought down with
shoulder fired rockets.
----------------
[/blockquote]
Any possibility they could have smuggled them in around 1996? (TWA 800)
----------------
The FBI in May 02 warned that Islamic extremists have smuggled shoulder
fired rockets into the USA.32 commercial have been brought down with
shoulder fired rockets.
----------------
[/blockquote]
Any possibility they could have smuggled them in around 1996? (TWA 800)
Its was widely reported in the news that the
airlines were warned about this.They still
allowed boxcutters even though it was against
either govt or aa and ual's own guidelines.
The Federal Aviation Administration warned the nation's airports and airlines in late 1998 about a possible terrorist hijacking 'at a metropolitan airport in the Eastern United States' and urged a 'high degree of vigilance' against threats to US civil aviation from Osama bin Laden's terrorist network, according to classified security bulletins obtained by the Globe.
Bulletins Warned Airports in '98
by Ralph Ranalli
The Boston Globe
May 26, 2002
The FBI in May 02 warned that Islamic extremists have smuggled shoulder
fired rockets into the USA.32 commercial have been brought down with
shoulder fired rockets.
airlines were warned about this.They still
allowed boxcutters even though it was against
either govt or aa and ual's own guidelines.
The Federal Aviation Administration warned the nation's airports and airlines in late 1998 about a possible terrorist hijacking 'at a metropolitan airport in the Eastern United States' and urged a 'high degree of vigilance' against threats to US civil aviation from Osama bin Laden's terrorist network, according to classified security bulletins obtained by the Globe.
Bulletins Warned Airports in '98
by Ralph Ranalli
The Boston Globe
May 26, 2002
The FBI in May 02 warned that Islamic extremists have smuggled shoulder
fired rockets into the USA.32 commercial have been brought down with
shoulder fired rockets.
Oliver Stone''s Apprentice
Veteran
- Aug 19, 2002
- 786
- 0
[blockquote]
----------------
On 11/25/2002 5
38 PM Diesel8 wrote:
Not that UAL does not have another way of raising some serious cash, after all UAL owns plenty of valuable assets, which even in this economic climate would go at a premium.
The goverment sadly decided to open the purse and since AWA received the loan guarantee, IMHO UAL and US will be granted approval as well. Not that it helps the industry, but it does help the affected companies, at least for the short term.
----------------
[/blockquote]
From what I've seen in the SEC filings, UAL really doesn't have a lot of hard assets left. The last of the real estate holdings and the ground equipment was pledged to back the IAM's retro-pay.
They have a few aircraft which might be able to be leveraged with EETC's or sale/leasebacks, to the degree someone wants them in their portfolio.
They also have route authorities, but those don't have a lot of value unless someone else can afford to buy them, and there aren't a lot of carriers with the cash, nor are there a lot of US carriers looking to add far-off international destinations to their route structures...
There's still a number of airlines who haven't been granted or denied a loan yet, and the approvals have only slightly outnumbered the rejections (5 to 4).
[ul]
[li]America West (approved and closed)
[li]American Trans Air (approved and closed)
[li]Aloha Airlines (conditionally approved)
[li]Frontier (conditionally approved)
[li]US Airways (conditionally approved)
[li]Frontier Flying Service (denied)
[li]National Airlines (denied)
[li]Spirit (denied, may reapply
[li]Vanguard (denied twice)
[li]Corporate Airlines (tbd)
[li]Evergreen International (tbd)
[li]Gemini Air Cargo (tbd)
[li]Great Plains (tbd)
[li]MEDjet International (tbd)
[li]United (tbd)
[li]World Airways (tbd)
[/ul]
So, UAL geting one because AWA and US got one is still a pretty big assumption.
----------------
On 11/25/2002 5
38 PM Diesel8 wrote: Not that UAL does not have another way of raising some serious cash, after all UAL owns plenty of valuable assets, which even in this economic climate would go at a premium.
The goverment sadly decided to open the purse and since AWA received the loan guarantee, IMHO UAL and US will be granted approval as well. Not that it helps the industry, but it does help the affected companies, at least for the short term.
----------------
[/blockquote]
From what I've seen in the SEC filings, UAL really doesn't have a lot of hard assets left. The last of the real estate holdings and the ground equipment was pledged to back the IAM's retro-pay.
They have a few aircraft which might be able to be leveraged with EETC's or sale/leasebacks, to the degree someone wants them in their portfolio.
They also have route authorities, but those don't have a lot of value unless someone else can afford to buy them, and there aren't a lot of carriers with the cash, nor are there a lot of US carriers looking to add far-off international destinations to their route structures...
There's still a number of airlines who haven't been granted or denied a loan yet, and the approvals have only slightly outnumbered the rejections (5 to 4).
[ul]
[li]America West (approved and closed)
[li]American Trans Air (approved and closed)
[li]Aloha Airlines (conditionally approved)
[li]Frontier (conditionally approved)
[li]US Airways (conditionally approved)
[li]Frontier Flying Service (denied)
[li]National Airlines (denied)
[li]Spirit (denied, may reapply
[li]Vanguard (denied twice)
[li]Corporate Airlines (tbd)
[li]Evergreen International (tbd)
[li]Gemini Air Cargo (tbd)
[li]Great Plains (tbd)
[li]MEDjet International (tbd)
[li]United (tbd)
[li]World Airways (tbd)
[/ul]
So, UAL geting one because AWA and US got one is still a pretty big assumption.
UnitedChicago
Veteran
- Aug 27, 2002
- 756
- 0
wts54:
There were numerous claims about the streak of light. It was later explained by the NTSB as actually coming from the initial explosion...the aft section of the plane continued to climb...with flames trailing...prior to the second explosion in that section.
It was proven that their was no missle that brought the plane down.
There were numerous claims about the streak of light. It was later explained by the NTSB as actually coming from the initial explosion...the aft section of the plane continued to climb...with flames trailing...prior to the second explosion in that section.
It was proven that their was no missle that brought the plane down.
http://twa800.com/sanders/ceo.pdf
Of course I believe everything the government
says too.You said you believe the ntsb's
theory and that theory is the aircraft climbed
several thousand feet by itself with the nose blown
off before it dropped into the drink.
Of course I believe everything the government
says too.You said you believe the ntsb's
theory and that theory is the aircraft climbed
several thousand feet by itself with the nose blown
off before it dropped into the drink.
