Republicans to United: Screw You!

[MrMarky]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 12/5/2002 1234 PM US2 wrote:

Sorry, Marky, but you are misreading the politics here. Edward Gramlich, Greenspan's Fed designee, was a Clinton appointee to the Fed. Formerly an economics professor, he was a professor of mine at Michigan and I cannot believe that his vote was driven by anything other than the numbers presented to the ATSB.
----------------
[/blockquote]

Hi US2,

I don't know how things work at your alma mater in Michigan, but I do know how things work in Washington. Anyone who thinks for a minute that the ATSB is not under the influence of the administration is either overconsuming something, or is terribly naive.

The fact is that this is a political decision. In fact, the entire mandate of the ATSB runs counter to the administration's philosophy despite the broad bipartisan support in Congress to enact the ATSA. Hence, only two small carriers have received the guarantees, for an agregate amount totaling less than 5 percent of the $10 billion allocated by Congress.

The ATSB was established to aid a distressed industry. That would seem to imply that government assistance was necessary to maintain the solvency of our airlines when they were unable to access the capital markets independently. If the ATSB is going to act like bankers and say "you don't qualify for the loan - your recovery plan is inadequate", then why does the board even exist?? If United and others could qualify for the loan, there would be no reason to have an ATSB or for the carriers to seek its assistance.

The whole concept of the government loan guarantees is pretty simple. It's to help those carriers who would otherwise be unable to secure financing. For the ATSB to take the position that you have to qualify for the loan in order to get the loan guarantee, turns the entire purpose of the board's very existence on its head. It's the consummate Catch 22. "We're here to help you get loans you can't qualify for on your own. But in order to receive our help, you have to be able to qualify for the loan."

Take care,

Marky

 

[MrMarky]

Well Mr. Bigshot I-Trade,

As usual you like to jump in with your condescending attitude of self-righteous superiority. Sorry, but I'm not interested in playing your game. Just because you disagree with me, which is fine, does not mean I have "failed miserably" nor does it mean you have "succeeded", other than perhaps in your own mind. It simply means we have a difference of opinion, something you seem to have trouble dealing with in a respectful, intelligent manner. Hence you resort to attempts at putting others down, which does not reflect well on you.

And your sanctimonious assertations about having "worked" on an ATSB application and having "lobbied" for an ATSB application ring a little hollow, as well. Yeah, I "lobbied" for an ATSB application, too. I sent a letter at United's request. You are long on unsustainable opinion and short on credibility.

Of course I'd be surprised if you are more than 25 years old.

MM

PS -- What happened to your little doggie?? Is he out doing your stock trades?

 

[MrMarky]

Well Mr. Bigshot I-Trade,

As usual you like to jump in with your condescending attitude of self-righteous superiority. Sorry, but I'm not interested in playing your game. Just because you disagree with me, which is fine, does not mean I have "failed miserably" nor does it mean you have "succeeded", other than perhaps in your own mind. It simply means we have a difference of opinion, something you seem to have trouble dealing with in a respectful, intelligent manner. Hence you resort to attempts at putting others down, which does not reflect well on you.

And your sanctimonious assertations about having "worked" on an ATSB application and having "lobbied" for an ATSB application ring a little hollow, as well. Yeah, I "lobbied" for an ATSB application, too. I sent a letter at United's request. You are long on unsustainable opinion and short on credibility.

Of course I'd be surprised if you are more than 25 years old.

MM

PS -- What happened to your little doggie?? Is he out doing your stock trades?

 

[Segue]

Help a distressed industry yes, throw good money after bad, NO. Does anybody here think the loan would have helped other than just buy more time? UAL did not get the loan because it could not prove it was a going concern. UAL needs some tough love, and now you are getting it.

You need to focus on fixing your ship. Right now its the most dysfunctional organization in the history of business.

 

[Segue]

Help a distressed industry yes, throw good money after bad, NO. Does anybody here think the loan would have helped other than just buy more time? UAL did not get the loan because it could not prove it was a going concern. UAL needs some tough love, and now you are getting it.

You need to focus on fixing your ship. Right now its the most dysfunctional organization in the history of business.

 

[Oliver Stone''s Apprentice]

Disagree all you want to, but try to keep it a bit more civil, OK?...

 

[Oliver Stone''s Apprentice]

Disagree all you want to, but try to keep it a bit more civil, OK?...

 

[ITRADE]

[P]
[BLOCKQUOTE][BR]----------------[BR]On 12/5/2002 2:42:27 PM MrMarky wrote:
[P]Well Mr. Bigshot I-Trade,[BR][BR]As usual you like to jump in with your condescending attitude of self-righteous superiority. Sorry, but I'm not interested in playing your game. Just because you disagree with me, which is fine, does not mean I have "failed miserably" nor does it mean you have "succeeded", other than perhaps in your own mind. It simply means we have a difference of opinion, something you seem to have trouble dealing with in a respectful, intelligent manner. Hence you resort to attempts at putting others down, which does not reflect well on you.[BR][BR]And your sanctimonious assertations about having "worked" on an ATSB application and having "lobbied" for an ATSB application ring a little hollow, as well. Yeah, I "lobbied" for an ATSB application, too. I sent a letter at United's request. You are long on unsustainable opinion and short on credibility.[BR][BR]Of course I'd be surprised if you are more than 25 years old.[BR][BR]MM[BR][BR]PS -- What happened to your little doggie?? Is he out doing your stock trades? [/P]----------------[/BLOCKQUOTE]
[P][/P]OOOOhhhhh.....I just love it when you get mad with the ad hominems. Showing your true colors.[BR][BR]How much do you want to bet on my age???? Do you really want to go down that road?

 

[ITRADE]

[P]
[BLOCKQUOTE][BR]----------------[BR]On 12/5/2002 2:42:27 PM MrMarky wrote:
[P]Well Mr. Bigshot I-Trade,[BR][BR]As usual you like to jump in with your condescending attitude of self-righteous superiority. Sorry, but I'm not interested in playing your game. Just because you disagree with me, which is fine, does not mean I have "failed miserably" nor does it mean you have "succeeded", other than perhaps in your own mind. It simply means we have a difference of opinion, something you seem to have trouble dealing with in a respectful, intelligent manner. Hence you resort to attempts at putting others down, which does not reflect well on you.[BR][BR]And your sanctimonious assertations about having "worked" on an ATSB application and having "lobbied" for an ATSB application ring a little hollow, as well. Yeah, I "lobbied" for an ATSB application, too. I sent a letter at United's request. You are long on unsustainable opinion and short on credibility.[BR][BR]Of course I'd be surprised if you are more than 25 years old.[BR][BR]MM[BR][BR]PS -- What happened to your little doggie?? Is he out doing your stock trades? [/P]----------------[/BLOCKQUOTE]
[P][/P]OOOOhhhhh.....I just love it when you get mad with the ad hominems. Showing your true colors.[BR][BR]How much do you want to bet on my age???? Do you really want to go down that road?

 

[Rhino]

Mr. Marky, IMO I-Trade is one of the most polite and knowledgable posters on this board. As are you most often. Your take on this thread is just silly, though.

 

[Rhino]

Mr. Marky, IMO I-Trade is one of the most polite and knowledgable posters on this board. As are you most often. Your take on this thread is just silly, though.

 

[lownslow]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 12/5/2002 2:18:36 PM MrMarky wrote:

Hence, only two small carriers have received the guarantees, for an agregate amount totaling less than 5 percent of the $10 billion allocated by Congress.

The whole concept of the government loan guarantees is pretty simple. It's to help those carriers who would otherwise be unable to secure financing. For the ATSB to take the position that you have to qualify for the loan in order to get the loan guarantee, turns the entire purpose of the board's very existence on its head.
----------------
[/blockquote]

Well, I wouldn't call HP "small" - they may be nowhere near the size of AA or UA, but they are considered a "major".

As for the purpose of the loan guarantees, I'm not certain the stated purpose was to get loans to carriers unable to secure financing otherwise, though I could be wrong. However, a loan guarantee will serve a good purpose, still. Carriers who would have been able to get financing otherwise will still be able to, but those cases which would have been borderline would most likely be accepted if a government guarantee is backing it up. And if its not a borderline case, a government guarantee will allow for a significantly lower finance rate than would have been available otherwise. Think of it this way - the US government is basically cosigning the loan, so the company is essentially riding the government's credit ratings. As the US government has basically the highest credit rating available, any company receiving a guarantee should be able to get much, much lower rates than otherwise possible, making it even more likely that they will be able to repay the loan.

Quite honestly, I thought UAL's application was rather sad, and I consider myself a left-leaning moderate (I refuse to call myself a Democrat or Republican, as neither party fully represents my views). The wage cuts did not make enough of a dent in the losses to make it a sustainable plan, IMO. The best way to approach restructuring would be to take on a proven approach (something more along the lines of a WN structure, which may not have been possible in this case), or assume the worst on revenues and cut costs to match. You can then "reward" the employees with significant profit-sharing in the even that revenues rebound and the cuts might have been too deep.

 

[lownslow]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 12/5/2002 2:18:36 PM MrMarky wrote:

Hence, only two small carriers have received the guarantees, for an agregate amount totaling less than 5 percent of the $10 billion allocated by Congress.

The whole concept of the government loan guarantees is pretty simple. It's to help those carriers who would otherwise be unable to secure financing. For the ATSB to take the position that you have to qualify for the loan in order to get the loan guarantee, turns the entire purpose of the board's very existence on its head.
----------------
[/blockquote]

Well, I wouldn't call HP "small" - they may be nowhere near the size of AA or UA, but they are considered a "major".

As for the purpose of the loan guarantees, I'm not certain the stated purpose was to get loans to carriers unable to secure financing otherwise, though I could be wrong. However, a loan guarantee will serve a good purpose, still. Carriers who would have been able to get financing otherwise will still be able to, but those cases which would have been borderline would most likely be accepted if a government guarantee is backing it up. And if its not a borderline case, a government guarantee will allow for a significantly lower finance rate than would have been available otherwise. Think of it this way - the US government is basically cosigning the loan, so the company is essentially riding the government's credit ratings. As the US government has basically the highest credit rating available, any company receiving a guarantee should be able to get much, much lower rates than otherwise possible, making it even more likely that they will be able to repay the loan.

Quite honestly, I thought UAL's application was rather sad, and I consider myself a left-leaning moderate (I refuse to call myself a Democrat or Republican, as neither party fully represents my views). The wage cuts did not make enough of a dent in the losses to make it a sustainable plan, IMO. The best way to approach restructuring would be to take on a proven approach (something more along the lines of a WN structure, which may not have been possible in this case), or assume the worst on revenues and cut costs to match. You can then "reward" the employees with significant profit-sharing in the even that revenues rebound and the cuts might have been too deep.

 

[enilria]

It's funny that the Republicans are always taking flak for "being in the pocket of big business" and yet somebody is actually claiming they intentionally denied a federal bailout of a company with questionable finances.

I think Ch11 is a much better place for them. As an employee of a rival airline, I don't want my tax dollars propping up a competitor.

 

[enilria]

It's funny that the Republicans are always taking flak for "being in the pocket of big business" and yet somebody is actually claiming they intentionally denied a federal bailout of a company with questionable finances.

I think Ch11 is a much better place for them. As an employee of a rival airline, I don't want my tax dollars propping up a competitor.