UAL Positive Cash Flow Beat Forcast

UnitedChicago

Veteran
Aug 27, 2002
756
0
www.usaviation.com
"Republicans in '04, '08, '12...."

So far for Republicans in '00:
-largest deficit on record
-record unemployment
-honerable greenspan openly disagreed with dis"stimulus" program
-biggest crisis in NATO's history
-fractured allies

Oh and the list goes on...but I'll spare everyone the obvious.
 

Flydrive1

Member
Oct 18, 2002
38
0
I guess it just depends on which side of his mouth he's talking out of!
2.gif']
 

Flydrive1

Member
Oct 18, 2002
38
0
And now...More from Jake!(speaking out of the other side of his mouth!):

Associated Press
United to Start Contract-Voiding Process
Wednesday March 12, 9:40 pm ET
By Dave Carpenter, AP Business Writer
United Airlines Likely to Start Contract-Voiding Process Monday, Executive Says


CHICAGO (AP) -- United Airlines will likely begin the process of voiding its labor contracts on Monday as it remains unlikely that its three main unions will agree to long-term concessions by then, a top company executive said Wednesday.



Chief financial officer Jake Brace said United expects to request a bankruptcy court to release it from the existing contracts. He declined to say whether any agreements are possible with any of United's three big unions by Monday, which union officials have indicated is unlikely.

The contracts wouldn't be nullified until May under United's proposal, giving labor and management another 45 days from that date to settle on terms. But initiating the legal process, which could wipe out decades of negotiated labor terms, will add new urgency to the contract talks at the heart of United's bankruptcy reorganization.

United made clear at a creditors' meeting Wednesday that it needs new labor deals in place by May 1, when temporary wage cuts expire, to meet lenders' strict financial targets in bankruptcy. The company wants to slash labor costs by 31 percent, or $2.56 billion annually, through 2008.

Besides resisting the drastic cutbacks, unions are opposed to the separate low-cost carrier United hopes will help it better compete with discount airlines.

The company told creditors that its cash flow in January was a positive $1 million a day, handily beating its forecast that it would lose $10 million to $15 million that month. It attributed the showing to the benefits of achieving interim labor agreements early that month.

But that achievement was clouded by United's acknowledgment that lower revenues and rising jet fuel costs have hurt its financial performance more than expected since then.

United filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection on Dec. 9. It hopes to emerge from bankruptcy sometime in 2004 -- an objective Brace said has not changed. But the industrywide crisis has cast that goal in significant doubt, and other major carriers may soon join United and US Airways in bankruptcy court.

Shares in United parent UAL Corp. fell 6 cents to close at 91 cents on the New York Stock Exchange.
 

UnitedChicago

Veteran
Aug 27, 2002
756
0
www.usaviation.com
While I readily admit I made some exagerations here (it's been a long day) but...

1. The budget SURPLUS under the late years of Clinton was not just a strong stock market. Try fiscal responsibility and no large tax-cuts. Of course the market helped...but who's economic stewardship allowed that to happen? Mr. Clintons.

2. Unemployment. The unemployment rate for Feb 03 was 5.8%. You called that a record? Try the following: 1932 - 23.6%, 1940 - 14.6%, 1958 - 6.8%, 1976 - 7.7%, 1986 - 7.0%, 1993 - 6.9%.

I said "record unemployment" as in it will be among the highest historically. Your data suggest it would be the 7th largest.

3. I'm not the only one in saying NATO was in crisis during the Turkey aid stand-off...check your local paper or analyst.

4. Who supports us disarming Iraq via force? UK, Spain, Italy and others. Whom opposes? Russia, China, France, Germany, etc. Many of the above are supposed to be our allies are they not?

I love how simplistic and black and white republicans make everything.

In any event...

Can't wait to hear Dumbya's concession speech...it's coming soon to a tv near you...in approximately 20 months!
 

A10HogDriver

Newbie
Mar 12, 2003
4
0
[blockquote]
----------------
On 3/12/2003 7:46:02 PM UnitedChicago wrote:

"Republicans in '04, '08, '12...."

So far for Republicans in '00:
-largest deficit on record
-record unemployment
-honerable greenspan openly disagreed with dis"stimulus" program
-biggest crisis in NATO's history
-fractured allies

Oh and the list goes on...but I'll spare everyone the obvious.
----------------
[/blockquote]


UnitedChicago: before you spew your ignorance, try checking on the facts.

1) Deficits. The deficit is projected to be 2.7% of GDP. In the 20 year period from 75-94, there was only ONE year (79)the deficit was lower. In the later 90s, the stock market bubble contributed to lower deficits. And, if you go back for the entire 1900s, you will find our current deficit is well below other deficit peaks.

2) Unemployment. The unemployment rate for Feb 03 was 5.8%. You called that a record? Try the following: 1932 - 23.6%, 1940 - 14.6%, 1958 - 6.8%, 1976 - 7.7%, 1986 - 7.0%, 1993 - 6.9%.

3) Alan Greenspan was concerned primarily with the geo-political situation and how that would effect the markets and the economy. He did not state he was against the stimulus plan - only he didn't favor action at this time. He did favor specifics in the plan, however - as he stated:

"The elimination of the double taxation of dividends will be helpful to everybody," Greenspan said. "This particular program will be net of benefit to virtually everybody in the economy over the long run, and that is one of the reasons I strongly support it."

4) Biggest crisis in NATO history? Fractured Allies? There are 19 member nations in NATO. 16 of those 19, an OVERWHELMING MAJORITY, SUPPORT the US position on Iraq. How is that fractured? The French and Germans have clear (and illegal in violation of UN sanctions) economic ties to Iraq - thus their not only lack of support but actual hindrance to enforcing 17 UN resolutions. France, in just the last few months, has even sent military parts and hardware to Iraq!!! in clear violation of UN sanctions - parts and hardware that will be used against the US military (myself included) in any future conflict.

Next time, do your research and don't be a clinton and lie, lie, lie.
 

UnitedChicago

Veteran
Aug 27, 2002
756
0
www.usaviation.com
Of all my possible retorts...I won't indulge as it's not related.

But I will say...you claim clinton rode Reagan's tax cut. Pish posh. If he rode anything (besides Monica) it was Bush senior's tax hike. Did you forget to read his lips? Clinton just didn't ride anyone's past economic plan...he installed his own. Again Republicans can't admit this.

And in terms of getting Osama...who knows. But, I do know that the current administration blundered clear, tangible intelligence - if they had connected the dots - they could have stopped this.

Okay...so sorry folks. Back to United.

Glad to hear about cash positive!
 
OP
U
Sep 7, 2002
37
0
www.usaviation.com
[blockquote]
----------------
On 3/12/2003 7:46:02 PM UnitedChicago wrote:

"Republicans in '04, '08, '12...."


So far for Republicans in '00:

-largest deficit on record

-record unemployment

-honerable greenspan openly disagreed with dis"stimulus" program

-biggest crisis in NATO's history

-fractured allies


Oh and the list goes on...but I'll spare everyone the obvious.
----------------
[/blockquote]



We can blame the worst thing to hit this country (The Clintons) for most of the mess we
are in now. If he would have done his job instead of getting his DNA all over Monica we
wouldn't have these issues. Thank him for giving North Korea nuclear technology and for not
taking Osama (4 times I might add) when he was offered to us. He did nothing to stop Saddam from developing his weapons (the U.N. didn't either). Thank God for our President who is watching over every single one of us. The Clintons rode the wave of Reagan's tax
cut, which is probably what the new President will do in 2008 (hopefully a Republican) when the next round will go into effect. And for all those who are against the tax cut, send what your taxes would have been to the IRS. I didn't think so.

Sorry spacewaitress, our President will not bring about the next apacolypse, Osama, Saddam, and all their minions will. Our President will stop it.

So what do you all think will happen to the union's contracts??
 

novaqt

Senior
Aug 20, 2002
488
0
United Chicago:

I feel compelled to add my comments to your one-sided closed liberal Dem. you are regurgitating on this board.

Bill Clinton when he took office in '92 appointed Robert Rubin (VP Goldman Sachs) as his Secretary of Treasury. He told Rubin that his Presidency was not going to preside over a bad economy and for him to come up with a way to get the economy out of the slump it was in. Rubin, together with Arthur Andersen, came of with the new accounting procedure called "Off Balancing". As you may be aware, Arthur Andersen's corporate clients all utilized this procedure by creating subcompanies and shifting the debt off the balance sheet to these subcompanies making the main company's bottom line look better than it really. We all know what happened next, the stock market took off like crazy while investors came out of the wood work to invest in these companies. Arthur Anderson was the accounting firm who handled UAL's accounting during that time. UAL has 22 subcompanies filed with the SEC in their 10K's. These companies did not exist until the "off balancing" procedure was put into effect.

As you know by now, a whole lot of companies got ENRONed including UAL. The crash in the market came during Clinton's last two years in office. The losses to everyone's pension plans and 401K's happened during the Clinton administration.

Bush as his own set of problems on his plate with his obsession to go to war with Iraq and not paying attention to domestic issues such as improving our economy. People here in America are suffering, especially the airline and travel industries. This plays right into the hands of the fundamentalist terrorist hands who have spent many years studying how to bring down the American and world economy. The terrorist leadership, many of whom, studied at our Universities, are now utilizing what we taught them to bring down America. They recognize that with the baby boomers retiring over the next 20 years or so, America will be weakened by the graying of America. Most of us will have to work, instead of enjoying retirement years. Corporations need to keep people employed in order for dollars to keep circulating in the economy. Furloughing, laying off or eliminating jobs is harmful to our economy.
 

A10HogDriver

Newbie
Mar 12, 2003
4
0
[blockquote]
----------------
On 3/12/2003 10:22:25 PM UnitedChicago wrote:

While I readily admit I made some exagerations here (it's been a long day) but...

1. The budget SURPLUS under the late years of Clinton was not just a strong stock market. Try fiscal responsibility and no large tax-cuts. Of course the market helped...but who's economic stewardship allowed that to happen? Mr. Clintons.

2. Unemployment. The unemployment rate for Feb 03 was 5.8%. You called that a record? Try the following: 1932 - 23.6%, 1940 - 14.6%, 1958 - 6.8%, 1976 - 7.7%, 1986 - 7.0%, 1993 - 6.9%.

I said "record unemployment" as in it will be among the highest historically. Your data suggest it would be the 7th largest.

3. I'm not the only one in saying NATO was in crisis during the Turkey aid stand-off...check your local paper or analyst.

4. Who supports us disarming Iraq via force? UK, Spain, Italy and others. Whom opposes? Russia, China, France, Germany, etc. Many of the above are supposed to be our allies are they not?

I love how simplistic and black and white republicans make everything.

In any event...

Can't wait to hear Dumbya's concession speech...it's coming soon to a tv near you...in approximately 20 months!
----------------
[/blockquote]

Talk about simplistic thinking above....

Here is some more thoughtful thinking below:

1) The budget situation in the latter clinton years were coincident with clinton being in office... his policies were not causal. He wasn't doing anything except trying to save his sorry rapist (remember Juanita Broderick?) skin. You can thank the Republican Congress in 94' and on for the fiscal situation.

Presidents J.F. Kennedy (the liberal's hero of heroes) and Ronald Reagan showed that Tax Rate Reductions resulted in INCREASED tax revenue. Would you rather have 70% of $100,000 or 20% of $500,000? When you lower the tax on capital you increase capital and economic growth.

2) Will you do some research!?!?!? I listed various unemployment rates from different decades - NOT ALL OF THEM. This was to put today's rates in perspective. For you to conclude my data would suggest our current rate is the 7th highest is a clear indication of your simplistic thought process.

3) So, some liberal newspapers or commentators declare NATO is in crisis over Turkey and that makes it so? Turkey's defense has been long since approved in NATO - there is no crisis there. Notice how none of these papers/analysts retracted their statements when the problem was fixed so quickly.

4) Who supports disarming Iraq by force? Over 60 countries. Which countries oppose? Those with strong economic (and ILLEGAL) ties are the ones opposed. France in particular (they were the ones who built the Iraqi nuclear plant the Israelis bombed)has 10s of BILLIONS of economic ties to Iraq. As I said, and you seem to think is not important - in the last few months France has ILLEGALLY shipped to Iraq - military hardware and parts!!! Our troops (myself included) will have to deal with this back-stabbing move from our 'ally' France. Germany also has illegal activity with Iraq as well as Russia and China (the latter two would not be put in anyone's list of US allies).

Here is something for your simplistic mind - the rapist made war in Kosovo without Congressional approval and without UN sanction. President Bush has a UNANIMOUS vote from the Senate (despite the pathetic backtracking of weak-kneed democrats) authorizing military action. He has 17 UN Resolutions over 12 years, including 1441 that give him UN authority to act (despite the pathetic actions the current Security Council).

We had Osama offered to the clinton administration MORE THAN ONCE and he didn't act.

Use some complexity in your thought and do some research!!!!
 
OP
U
Sep 7, 2002
37
0
www.usaviation.com
[blockquote]
----------------
On 3/13/2003 7:53:21 AM UnitedChicago wrote:

Of all my possible retorts...I won't indulge as it's not related.


But I will say...you claim clinton rode Reagan's tax cut. Pish posh. If he rode anything (besides Monica) it was Bush senior's tax hike. Did you forget to read his lips? Clinton just didn't ride anyone's past economic plan...he installed his own. Again Republicans can't admit this.
*****************************************
Yes. Bush 41 did something very stupid...which is why I voted for Perot....O.K. stop
laughing. All Clinton did was raise taxes on the upper brackets. Another class-warfare
tactic by your beloved democrats. Are you going to vote for Al Sharpton? Rush Limbaugh has gave his endorsement of him.



And in terms of getting Osama...who knows. But, I do know that the current administration blundered clear, tangible intelligence - if they had connected the dots - they could have stopped this.
**********************************************************************
*********************
"Who knows"?? Is that a cop-out? The Clinton Administration made a huge mistake by not
taking him. So if anything, it could have been stopped there. When you mention how the Bush 43 administration is blundering, make sure you mention in the same sentence Ken Starr, Monica, North Korea, Algore, impeachment, Hillary (aaaahhhh!!!), etc...


Okay...so sorry folks. Back to United.


Glad to hear about cash positive!
*****************************************************
Yes! It's nice not to be burning through the cash like we were in Dec. American is now having the same problems we had last year. Too bad they didn't learn from us.
 

atabuy

Senior
Oct 13, 2002
419
0
Back to Ual,
Good!
Let's see if this conspiacy senario might make sense.

Deep in the bowels of Ual, a think tank had been trying to figure a way to keep the unions at bay when they became cash positive.
Low and behold they come up with LCC.
There is no way unions would ever agree to this plan within the time frame, therefore jamming up normal negotiations and delaying long enough to abrogate the contracts.

They have their cake and eat it too. No vp's are let go and Ual will have their way with the employees. Management has done it again. More bonuses for the big guys.
Maybe I am wrong. Any other senarios?