Republicans to United: Screw You!

[delldude]

payback for schmoozing with Tom Daschle's 'ol lady.

 

[delldude]

payback for schmoozing with Tom Daschle's 'ol lady.

 

[j7915]

[blockquote]----------------On 12/6/2002 1247 AM enilria wrote: 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.----------------[/blockquote]

Could all this politics have something to do with the logo on that shiny new 737 that flew the president select to Wash?

 

[j7915]

[blockquote]----------------On 12/6/2002 1247 AM enilria wrote: 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.----------------[/blockquote]

Could all this politics have something to do with the logo on that shiny new 737 that flew the president select to Wash?

 

[sfb]

To blow yet another hole in the "evil Republicans screw United" scenarion, the "Republican Treasury Secretary" stepped down today at the request of the Bush administration. Clearly not what you'd expect to see happen from a man who was taking orders from Bush to slam United. I suppose if the ATSB had approved UAL's loan guarantee request, we'd hear all about how the Republicans are subsidizing big business at the expense of the American taxpayers.

Mineta's representative did *NOT* vote to approve the guarantee; he voted to give the company a short extension to try to put forth a more realistic business plan. If you read through the legislation and the letter to United from the ATSB, it's quite clear why they were denied the loan application. The act of Congress establishing the loan guarantees requires that the government's obligation be "prudently incurred;" i.e. there must be a reasonable certainty of repayment. The financial rating agencies hired by the ATSB to review UAL's business plan, however, they did not find that the proposed plan was acceptable. To quote ATSB's letter, "The Board believes that, even if the company were to receive the proceeds of a guaranteed loan, there is a high probability that United would face another liquidity crisis within the next few years. The Board’s financial consultant assigned the proposed loan an extremely low credit rating, implying that United is more likely than not to default. The Board believes that the company’s proposal poses an unacceptably high risk to U.S. taxpayers and does not support the conclusion that there is a reasonable assurance of repayment of the proposed loan."

The ATSB was established to help distressed carriers, but it certainly was NOT Congress's intent for the ATSB to act as a crutch for airlines whose business plans were already failing before September 11 and who were unwilling to adopt the broad sorts of changes needed to face the realities of an air travel market which isn't being driven by a speculative bubble economy. The "low-fare" carriers with broken business models (Vanguard, National, Midway) were allowed to fail; they were all in trouble even before September 11. US Airways received a tentative loan guarantee approval because, even though the business was in trouble 18 months ago, they have put forth broad changes in their cost structure and business plan to work toward profitability. America West was a textbook example of an airline the program was designed to help; they were on the verge of closing a large loan through the capital markets on September 10, 2001. Obviously, in the intervening months, few were interested in offering loans to airlines.

I don't really see how politics had a big effect; otherwise, US Airways would have been denied its loan guarantee. American (cited as a major obstacle to UA's guarantee) has certainly been trying to grab business from US in the Northeast with service expansions at BOS and the addition of its own RJ-based shuttle operation. And I certainly believe that Republicans would want to curry favor for 2004 in a large swing state like Illinois...

 

[sfb]

To blow yet another hole in the "evil Republicans screw United" scenarion, the "Republican Treasury Secretary" stepped down today at the request of the Bush administration. Clearly not what you'd expect to see happen from a man who was taking orders from Bush to slam United. I suppose if the ATSB had approved UAL's loan guarantee request, we'd hear all about how the Republicans are subsidizing big business at the expense of the American taxpayers.

Mineta's representative did *NOT* vote to approve the guarantee; he voted to give the company a short extension to try to put forth a more realistic business plan. If you read through the legislation and the letter to United from the ATSB, it's quite clear why they were denied the loan application. The act of Congress establishing the loan guarantees requires that the government's obligation be "prudently incurred;" i.e. there must be a reasonable certainty of repayment. The financial rating agencies hired by the ATSB to review UAL's business plan, however, they did not find that the proposed plan was acceptable. To quote ATSB's letter, "The Board believes that, even if the company were to receive the proceeds of a guaranteed loan, there is a high probability that United would face another liquidity crisis within the next few years. The Board’s financial consultant assigned the proposed loan an extremely low credit rating, implying that United is more likely than not to default. The Board believes that the company’s proposal poses an unacceptably high risk to U.S. taxpayers and does not support the conclusion that there is a reasonable assurance of repayment of the proposed loan."

The ATSB was established to help distressed carriers, but it certainly was NOT Congress's intent for the ATSB to act as a crutch for airlines whose business plans were already failing before September 11 and who were unwilling to adopt the broad sorts of changes needed to face the realities of an air travel market which isn't being driven by a speculative bubble economy. The "low-fare" carriers with broken business models (Vanguard, National, Midway) were allowed to fail; they were all in trouble even before September 11. US Airways received a tentative loan guarantee approval because, even though the business was in trouble 18 months ago, they have put forth broad changes in their cost structure and business plan to work toward profitability. America West was a textbook example of an airline the program was designed to help; they were on the verge of closing a large loan through the capital markets on September 10, 2001. Obviously, in the intervening months, few were interested in offering loans to airlines.

I don't really see how politics had a big effect; otherwise, US Airways would have been denied its loan guarantee. American (cited as a major obstacle to UA's guarantee) has certainly been trying to grab business from US in the Northeast with service expansions at BOS and the addition of its own RJ-based shuttle operation. And I certainly believe that Republicans would want to curry favor for 2004 in a large swing state like Illinois...

 

[atabuy]

New voting logo.
Push Bush out the door. We don't want him anymore.

Although he is the best money can buy. lol

 

[atabuy]

New voting logo.
Push Bush out the door. We don't want him anymore.

Although he is the best money can buy. lol

 

[grndproxwarning]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 12/6/2002 316 PM atabuy wrote:

New voting logo.
Push Bush out the door. We don't want him anymore.

Although he is the best money can buy. lol
----------------
[/blockquote]
We Should of listened to Jessie when he said to
Keep aut da bushes

 

[grndproxwarning]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 12/6/2002 316 PM atabuy wrote:

New voting logo.
Push Bush out the door. We don't want him anymore.

Although he is the best money can buy. lol
----------------
[/blockquote]
We Should of listened to Jessie when he said to
Keep aut da bushes

 

[JI Guy]

ILL. wasnt a swing state in 2000..It went firmly for Gore and I think the GOP is also not feeling too good about its prospects here in 2004...A Democratic governor, Rod Blagojevich, will be in office in 2004...There is hostility toward GOP now in Illinois...They are better off focusing on Wisco & Minn., Michigan, and Iowa in this zone. Ohio, Indiana,and the state of Ky. are all strong GOP in presidential years.

 

[JI Guy]

ILL. wasnt a swing state in 2000..It went firmly for Gore and I think the GOP is also not feeling too good about its prospects here in 2004...A Democratic governor, Rod Blagojevich, will be in office in 2004...There is hostility toward GOP now in Illinois...They are better off focusing on Wisco & Minn., Michigan, and Iowa in this zone. Ohio, Indiana,and the state of Ky. are all strong GOP in presidential years.

 

[Rational Thought]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 12/6/2002 3:17:48 PM JI Guy wrote:

ILL. wasnt a swing state in 2000
----------------
[/blockquote]

2000 was 2 years ago. Things change. The state may or may not go Dem again, but predicting it now is suspect.

[blockquote]
----------------
On 12/6/2002 3:17:48 PM JI Guy wrote:

There is hostility toward GOP now in Illinois...They are better off focusing on Wisco & Minn., Michigan, and Iowa in this zone. Ohio, Indiana,and the state of Ky. are all strong GOP in presidential years.
----------------
[/blockquote]

Hostility? Unlikely. Maybe some are annoyed, but the UAL CH11 event will be a blip. After a couple of weeks, people will forget about it. The unions will vote Democrat, but they always will. People often vote based on self-interest.

 

[Rational Thought]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 12/6/2002 3:17:48 PM JI Guy wrote:

ILL. wasnt a swing state in 2000
----------------
[/blockquote]

2000 was 2 years ago. Things change. The state may or may not go Dem again, but predicting it now is suspect.

[blockquote]
----------------
On 12/6/2002 3:17:48 PM JI Guy wrote:

There is hostility toward GOP now in Illinois...They are better off focusing on Wisco & Minn., Michigan, and Iowa in this zone. Ohio, Indiana,and the state of Ky. are all strong GOP in presidential years.
----------------
[/blockquote]

Hostility? Unlikely. Maybe some are annoyed, but the UAL CH11 event will be a blip. After a couple of weeks, people will forget about it. The unions will vote Democrat, but they always will. People often vote based on self-interest.

 

[oldiebutgoody]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 12/6/2002 1247 AM enilria wrote:

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.
----------------
[/blockquote]
As an employee of ANY airline, even the ones less likely to file bankruptcy AT THIS TIME, you should be VERY concerned about the plight of UAL. This will be a drag on the industry for years, and will likely precipitate others into a similar fate as prices are held artificially low by the troubled carriers which have protection from their creditors. This is a TERRIBLE development, even for those of us not employed at UAL. I do admit that this situation was forceable for at least the last month, with the unrealistic demands od UAL's labor groups in the face of such poor economic conditions. I bet that most employees at UAL are STILL in serious denial at what is occurring. For UAL to make it, their cuts will likely be far deeper than those required at U, simply because U has access to the low cost government guaranteed loan and presently UAL does not. If they (UAL) are to have ANY chance at all, they have got to make the hard cuts necessary to get the loan guarantee, since NO company that can offer financing in their right mind wants ANYTHING to do with airlines right now. Without the guarantee any sort of financing will involve outrageous rates and conditions, just due to the risk involved.
These developments have the potential to drive ALL AIRLINE WAGES AND WORKING CONDITIONS right into the toilet, at least as far as the full service, hub and spoke carriers are concerned. These are very trying days, and it looks like worse may be to come. Good luck to all!