UA Liquidation - Who Gets What?

[Boomer]

eolesen,

It must be a sign of the times, but, I find myself agreeing with you. Same aircraft with different engines is the same thing as operating different aircraft from the support(fixed cost) end.

The switch from Yield pursuit to Efficiency will always rankle some "connected" with marketing. For at least the last twenty years, marketing has controlled budgets and routings under the guise of bringing in the big fish. We were good at doing just that, but, no one seemed to be concerned with an examination of the opportunity cost paid by doing so.

My understanding of what Carty now wants to do is to change the model in pursuit of Efficiency. When we get down to the leanest, most efficient model; we can then selectively pursue yield in those markets where price is elastic enough to accomodate the increase in costs.

 

[FrugalFlyer]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 12/19/2002 2:09:22 PM Connected1 wrote:

In that situation, who will snap up which of UA's assets, and how will they pay for them?


----------------
[/blockquote]

US Airways in a very interesting/unique/special corporate transaction


DL would probably be very interested in LHR
AA would probably be very interested in NRT
CO/NW could be interested in the latim america ops

AA would also expand at ORD and LAX and maybe move a good chunk of their ops from San Jose to SFO

DEN ?
IAD ?

 

[AC AA LA FA]

[BR][BR][STRONG]NRT is pretty much already covered (move SJC to SFO, perhaps), so by focusing on TPE, HKG, PEK and SHA, we could probably make do with the 43 aircraft we already have.[BR][BR]7 acft alone are used up on JFK/BOS-LHR, another 3 on DFW/RDU-LGW, 2 on JFK/DFW-CDG, and 1 on DFW-FRA. [BR][BR]That's 13 routes which could be flown (again) with 763's. [BR][BR][/STRONG]...EO..all service to LHR is to be 3 class, and with the 767-300(34)going in for re-configuration to 2 class, it will be used for all other stations in Europe other than LHR..that will stay 777 from all US gateways

 

[UnitedChicago]

Look at you vultures. Can you give the men and woman of United and their customers (i fall into the customer category) at little respect and not talk about this scenario?

I'll tell you this, if UA does dissappear...American will NEVER see one red cent from me.

 

[Oliver Stone''s Apprentice]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 12/21/2002 6:03:49 PM AC AA LA FA wrote:

EO..all service to LHR is to be 3 class, and with the 767-300(34)going in for re-configuration to 2 class, it will be used for all other stations in Europe other than LHR..that will stay 777 from all US gateways
----------------
[/blockquote]

I fully realize that. If three class is so important for LHR alone, then retain a percentage of the 763 fleet as-is. But I think one could also make a case for a two class product into LHR, especially if it meant getting access to mainland China and beyond rights at NRT.

 

[ual-crewdesk-man]

That's right UnitedChicago...these people are all dreaming if they think
UAL is going to liquidate. Let's not forget AA is 2 steps behind UAL. You'll be
in Chapter 11 within 6 months, and we'll be out of it way before you.

P.S. Funny how the conversation "AA Liquidation - Who gets what?" is
not being held on the UAL board. It shows the respect the people at UAL have.
And besides, who wants RDU-LGW and MIA-PAP anyway?
Good luck getting rid of those...

 

[FA Mikey]

Shows what you know. MIA and all cities to PAP, provide the highest yeilds in the AA system. Was the same for PA and EAL. Raleigh to LGW has a single major client that fills our premium cabin. There is a reason thats a 3 class 777.

 

[Connected1]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 12/21/2002 7:17:29 PM UnitedChicago wrote:
Can you give the men and woman of United and their customers (i fall into the customer category) at little respect and not talk about this scenario?
----------------
[/blockquote]
Someone has to think of these things. Why not us? If you prefer, we'll act surprised when UA liquidates.

 

[Connected1]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 12/21/2002 7:53:47 PM ual-crewdesk-man wrote:
these people are all dreaming if they think UAL is going to liquidate.
----------------
[/blockquote]
Prediction duely noted. Let's revisit at the end of the first quarter.

 

[Red Forman]

To all who are drooling over the possible demise of UAL---try appearing as if you have at least an ounce of class somewhere in your body and SHUT UP. Most of us are one bone-head management team or terrorist attack away from unemployment. For the UAL people who claim they would behave better---well, sorry. I personally know waaaaaaaay too many UAL employees who did not contain their glee over the demise of Pan Am. Put a fork in this thread. It deserves to die a swift death. By the way, I work for AA and my wife works for UAL. 1/3 of our household income would go away with her job. Don't flame me as being biased, I'm just honest.

 

[Oliver Stone''s Apprentice]

Welcome to the reality of competition in the marketplace.

Nobody will flame you for being honest here.

But while we're being honest, it is a fact that every dollar that goes into UAL's coffers is one that could have potentially gone towards my paycheck, so forgive those of us who are looking out for AA's interests first, even if it comes at the expense of a competitor.

 

[Bob Owens]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 12/23/2002 917 AM eolesen wrote:

Welcome to the reality of competition in the marketplace.

Nobody will flame you for being honest here.

But while we're being honest, it is a fact that every dollar that goes into UAL's coffers is one that could have potentially gone towards my paycheck, so forgive those of us who are looking out for AA's interests first, even if it comes at the expense of a competitor.
----------------
[/blockquote]
How did you come to that conclusion? Are you being paid less because UAL exists? Did your pay go up when AA took over TWA? Maybe as a stockholder you could use self interest as a motivation for hoping that UAL liquidates but as an employee, who is under no guarantee of eternal employment from AA, its in your best interests that there are many employers willing to compete for your services. The contraction of the marketplace, from the point of view as a seller of labor, is not a positive trend.
As a worker our best interests are served by having UAL continue in business and continue to pay standard rates of compensation.

 

[MAH4546]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 12/21/2002 7:53:47 PM ual-crewdesk-man wrote:

And besides, who wants RDU-LGW and MIA-PAP anyway?
Good luck getting rid of those...

----------------
[/blockquote]

LOL, are you kidding me? You know how much United would LOVE to have MIA-PAP? MIA-PAP has such high yields it is not even funny. Even Air France flies MIA-PAP ten times a week!

As for RDU-LGW, the route is subsidized, has been since 1992, and makes a very nice profit.

As for UAL's Latin ops, what little is left of it, I think AA will gladly take them over. They can get third frequencies on MIA-EZE/GIG/GRU, ORD-GRU, and a handful of LAX-Central America routes, and pleny of unused route auhtorites, like MIA-(GIG)-CPT and MIA-CNF. All are pretty lucrative, even though not a desireable now than in the past or in the future. They don't need the IAD routes, though.

 

[LGA Fleet Service]

[FONT size=1]Hey Red, I think Hyde and Fez are busy drinking the last of your beers.

 

[whlinder]

Any chance at moving in at IAD? Even if UA doesn't liquidate and instead just closes the hub? My guess would be that AA would shift some capacity from STL to IAD, if they decided to move in there...