US business parter UA plans to return to basics, Business blueprint presented to creditors

Status
Not open for further replies.
United gains, but continues to taxi

Critics: Airline must do more to get federal help


DENVER (Post) - United Airlines has come a long way since it filed for bankruptcy protection six months ago.

But critics say it may not have come far enough to persuade the government to back hefty loans it will need to emerge from Chapter 11.

United officials say they are interested in reapplying for a federal loan guarantee to help the carrier exit from court protection in six to nine months.

If they do, they'll again face the Air Transportation Stabilization Board, a panel of three high-ranking bureaucrats who were deeply skeptical of United's previous attempt last year.

The board's sharply worded rejection of a $1.8 billion guarantee in December was the final blow that sent United into bankruptcy.

"The ATSB seemed to go out of its way to criticize United's business plan," said Henry Miller, chairman of Miller Buckfire Lewis Ying, a New York investment-banking firm specializing in corporate restructurings.

"This time around, in a less supportive political and economic environment, it will be even more essential for United to have a credible, realistic and achievable business plan," said Miller, who has advised airlines in six Chapter 11 cases.

Miller and others acknowledge that United has made great strides by slashing labor expenses by $2.5 billion.

The stabilization board was particularly critical of the company's failure to obtain those cost cuts outside of court.

But bankruptcy experts say United should secure a substantial private equity investment before it returns to the board. A show of confidence from an outside investor would help ease any remaining doubts the government may have about United's business plan, these observers say.

The stabilization board granted US Airways a $900 million loan guarantee to help it emerge from bankruptcy, which may place pressure on the government to accept United's application.

But US Airways had an equity partner, Retirement Systems of Alabama, which is buying a 37 percent stake in the airline for $240 million.

"If you go to the ATSB without a partner and they say no, that's a big blow. It's the second time in a row, and it could be the death knell for United," said William Brandt, a bankruptcy consultant and chief executive of Development Specialists Inc. in Chicago. "If you go in with a big-time equity investor, the loans can be made with the expectation of being repaid. You'll do better in front of the board."

United is the largest airline at Denver International Airport, where it handles about 60 percent of passenger traffic.

The company hasn't said when it might reapply for a loan guarantee or whether it would bring in an equity investor as part of a potential bid.

The company has said only that it has begun seeking financing for its eventual emergence from bankruptcy in six to nine months.

"We've had discussions with individuals and entities on both the debt and equity side," said United spokesman Jeff Green. "We haven't made any determinations."

Sources close to United say the company is trying to avoid giving up a large equity stake and is concentrating on obtaining other sources of financing, namely bank loans and other debt.

One reason is that United's creditors might prefer that their own eventual ownership in United not be diluted by a large, new investor. Companies like GE Capital, Boeing and Airbus could be willing to cut United special deals on aircraft payments to help the company minimize the need for outside money.

Another possible motive is that management and the board of directors may not want to give up control over United's fate. Investors who take large equity positions in bankrupt companies often want seats on the board and, sometimes, new management teams.

University of Chicago law professor and bankruptcy specialist Douglas Baird said he doesn't think chief executive Glenn Tilton is concerned with this.

"Let's say that a year from now United emerged with new money from an equity financier, and the upshot was that Tilton was gone. If I were Tilton, I'd be enormously pleased with myself. I'd have turned it around and left it healthy and intact," Baird said.

Loans, whether backed by the government or not, certainly come with fewer strings attached. But if United takes on too much new debt, it risks burdening itself with high interest payments once it emerges from Chapter 11, bankruptcy experts said.

Miller estimates United will need access to $2 billion to $3 billion to exit successfully. He said up to $1 billion of that should be equity to keep the company's debt load under control.

Regardless of which way it goes, United still faces a big challenge in the capital markets because it continues to lose money, others said. The company lost $375 million in April, during the height of travel concerns over the Iraq war and SARS.

Results are likely to improve in May and June, but not necessarily enough for United to meet tight financial-performance targets set by the banks whose loans are allowing the company to operate in bankruptcy.

The weak economy continues to take a toll on United's revenues, as does the uncertainty about its future.


United's financial targets require it to begin posting operating profits to reduce its massive cumulative loss since filing for court protection on Dec. 9.

Most observers say they believe United will be able to renegotiate the loan targets, but missing them would raise questions about the airline's long-term health.

The airline eventually will run out of cash if its operational losses don't stop, and many people are still waiting for a clear explanation of how and when that will happen.


"The big question, after the economic crisis is over, is whether or not a hub-and-spoke airline like United can make money," Baird said.

"They have to come up with a story about how things in the future will be different," Baird said. "If I ran a failing restaurant and asked you if you would like to be part-owner, your first question would be, 'Excuse me, but when are you going to stop losing money?"'

Those familiar with United's plans say its recovery strategy is based primarily on luring back business passengers to the airline's main operation at prices somewhere above the discount competition.

United officials recently have downplayed their vision for a low-cost division that would have flown 30 percent of the carrier's routes and competed head-on with Southwest and JetBlue.

The company has slashed $2.5 billion from its annual payroll and is negotiating to cut more than $500 million from its annual aircraft and airport costs.

The cost cuts are critical to United's survival, but huge challenges remain, Baird said.

"They've done everything they absolutely had to do to stay in business. United has done all the things it had to do to have a chance," Baird said. "That doesn't mean they're going to survive."
 
Airlines dangle 'buy 3, get 1 free' bait

WASHINGTON (USA TODAY) - With vacationers fixated on discounts, seven big airlines are counting on "buy three, get one free" ticket offers to lure business travelers and perhaps lift revenue this summer.

United's move was initially viewed by the other carriers as "an act of desperation," says Michael Koetting, senior vice president of the corporate travel firm TQ3 Travel Solutions. But they matched United.

[url="http://www.usatoday.com/money/biztravel/2003-06-16-airfares_x.htm"]http://www.usatoday.com/money/biztravel/20...-airfares_x.htm[/URL]
 
Hi Chip,

Believe it or not, I have a source at UAL who has seen the business plan.

What little he would tell me is as follows:

1. Unless something catastrophic happens, UAL will not liquidate.
2. There is significant interest by several major financial institutions to provide UAL with exit financing.
3. Major cost savings will show up on the books a little at a time in the next few months (i.e. insurance payments by employees begin in July, new pay rates will be fully reflected in June, etc.).
4. The rumors that UAL''s cash burn is accelerating is false. Over the next few months it should slow dramatically.
5. The SARS crisis is abating. UAL is adding Pacific flights in July, and traffic is starting to rebound.
6. Domestic traffic is also increasing. As a result UAL is adding mainline and express flights each month.
7. When UAL filed for BK protection it said it might take 18 months to reorganize. CEO Glen Tilton is fully prepared to stay in BK for the 18 months if it is advantageous to UAL. His reasoning is that you shouldn''t rush out of CH11 until you have extracted every possible concession. Sounds logical to me.
8. I asked if UAL would be profitable when it emerged from CH11. The answer was, "probably not, but it will be close." UAL is going to come out of BK with incredibly low costs, and when the economy begins to turn it should be one of the first financially troubled majors to turn a profit.
I also asked what it would take to make UAL profitable now, and the answer was "to make drastic cuts to the airline similar to the ones made by USAirways." UAL would be profitable now if Tilton does this, but it would be a shell of it''s former self. CEO Tilton apparently recognizes the value of the company. For example, their Pacific operation is unprofitable now, but you don''t sell it or put RJs on it. You batten down the hatches and wait for the turnaround. Employee and vendor concessions give them the luxury to wait a while for things to improve.

That''s all I can remember, but my source''s overall impression of the plan was positive. In a nutshell, bad things could still happen, but the posibility of that grows more remote with each passing day. When UAL emerges from CH11, it will do so with extremely low costs for a global airline and with it''s route structure and fleet largely intact.

Chip, I guess what I''m trying to do is remind you that people who live in glass houses.....well you know the rest. U is a long way from being out of the woods, yet you choose to ignore it''s negatives and instead skew UAL''s troubles to fit your posts. If you want to have an effective debate on the issues of UAL''s survival then you need to remove all hints of your bias. It doesn''t take a genius to see why the UAL employees get defensive about your posts. I''m not a genius, but even I can see how you twist UAL articles around and spout comments from unnamed sources. If I were a UAL employee I would get riled up too.

Regards,

737
 
737:

737 said: "I also asked what it would take to make UAL profitable now, and the answer was "to make drastic cuts to the airline similar to the ones made by USAirways."

Chip asks: Who was the first person to report in public, on this website, that the McKinsey & Co. plan was to reduce UA ASMs by 30 to 35% and the airline would have 6,000 pilots? Moreover, does this ASM number equal the UTC?

In addition, who has repeatedly said that he believes UA would survive, but could end up fragmenting or dramatically downsizing? I was just wondering...why did UA ALPA change its seniority integration language from the pre-nuptial clause in ERP I to ALPA Merger Policy in their new agreement?

Best regards,

Chip
 
Chip,

I''ll let the UAL employees fight their own battles, but I''ll point out a couple of things.

Why did UAL ALPA change the language referring to merger policy? It''s called CYA. I think the pilots realize that in BK anything can happen.

I didn''t want to mention this because I don''t like to speculate about anybody losing their jobs, but it was said that UAL will only furlough about 400 more pilots max. They are looking at it on a month by month basis. The furloughs are the result of increased productivity per pilot. UAL adding flights this summer changes this whole dynamic.

I''ll also repeat what I said about CEO Tilton recognizing the value of UAL. This man understands that to create a company with any chance of surviving you don''t want to shatter it into pieces. UAL has no interest in fragmenting. According to my source UAL will not close any hubs, however they may close pilot and flight attendant domiciles to save money. This doesn''t mean service cutbacks to those airports. The whole argument about UAL having to sell assets and routes to raise cash is pretty much moot at this point.

CEO Tilton understands that the big money is in business travel, and to win those passengers back you can''t cram them into a fleet of RJs. I believe USAirways is heading for trouble by adopting this strategy. Only time will tell which carrier is right.

Cheers,

737
 
Chip:

As someone who repeatedly professes to be very concerned about "US'' code-sharing business partner UA", I would think that you would be as eager to mention any positive news about UA as you clearly are to note any negative news. And while there has certainly been a much greater amount of negative news about UA recently, it''s also quite clear that positive news about UA apparently just doesn''t register with you (at least on this board).

A case in point -- a few posts above this one, you posted a link to a CBS News article from yesterday regarding potential safety problems at UA''s former IND maintenance base. While the general news media tend to sensationalize stories of this nature, it could still be quite harmful to UA, at least from a PR standpoint. But fair enough, safety issues are very important to all of us and should be investigated and reported upon.

But earlier today, Reuters issued this article stating the UA was starting an in-flight e-mail service with Verizon. The article quoted a UA spokesman as saying that this service would be provided on all domestic flights at no cost to UA while generating a small revenue stream for the carrier by offering a new customer convenience. The Reuters article was later elaborated upon by this UA press release.

My question to you: why do these articles or press releases with positive information about UA never seem to show up on your "radar screen" or in your posts on this board? While the in-flight e-mail system to be deployed on UA''s flights might not be a huge revenue generator, it will still have a positive impact on the carrier''s bottom line, an important consideration for an airline in the midst of bankruptcy proceedings (or perhaps even for an airline just a few months removed from such proceedings, like US). Moreover, it will offer a convenience to not just UA''s own passengers but also to any US passengers that might be on a domestic UA code-share flight.

So, with all due respect, Chip, I would argue that it is this kind of selective posting on your part regarding news about UA that leads folks, myself included, to believe that you''re not as evenhanded as you claim to be on this subject, or that you have an anti-UA agenda or bias. But the problem isn''t that you''re not evenhanded when it comes to UA -- you are entitled to your opinions, whatever they are, just as much as anybody else. The problem, IMHO, is that you claim to be evenhanded regarding UA when, in reality, you aren''t.
 
Hi Cosmo,

I found this article today titled "UAL Plan Draws Kudos".
Chances are it will never make it to this board. HA HA

www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/business/article/0,1299,DRMN_4_2044362,00.html

You guys keep up the good work.
 
And on the subject of UA''s new in-flight e-mail service, this Forbes.com article from this afternoon praised UA''s initiative as the first U.S. carrier to offer such a service. And not only is UA expected to earn a small amount of revenue on the in-flight e-mail service itself, but (according to Forbes.com) it will also help UA to attract more business passengers, with their usually higher revenues, to the carrier''s domestic flights. In Forbes.com''s words, it was "the right call." Time will tell if that proves to be the case.
 
----------------
On 6/17/2003 5:13:54 PM savyinvestor wrote:

Munn states he only posts about UAL because of its relationship with U and how it affects U. If thats the case you would think he might post some positive things about UAL for the very same reasons. It seems strange then that he seldom if evere posts anything positive. I wonder why ? Savy

----------------​

Uh oh, will you be the next one to have your name turned into the moderator for pointing out that there is a hole in that truth?
 
----------------
On 6/16/2003 11:57:38 PM 737nCH11 wrote:

Hi Chip,

Believe it or not, I have a source at UAL who has seen the business plan.

What little he would tell me is as follows:

1. Unless something catastrophic happens, UAL will not liquidate.
2. There is significant interest by several major financial institutions to provide UAL with exit financing.
3. Major cost savings will show up on the books a little at a time in the next few months (i.e. insurance payments by employees begin in July, new pay rates will be fully reflected in June, etc.).
4. The ors that UAL's cash burn is accelerating is false. Over the next few months it should slow dramatically.
5. The SARS crisis is abating. UAL is adding Pacific flights in July, and traffic is starting to rebound.
6. Domestic traffic is also increasing. As a result UAL is adding mainline and express flights each month.
7. When UAL filed for BK protection it said it might take 18 months to reorganize. CEO Glen Tilton is fully prepared to stay in BK for the 18 months if it is advantageous to UAL. His reasoning is that you shouldn't rush out of CH11 until you have extracted every possible concession. Sounds logical to me.
8. I asked if UAL would be profitable when it emerged from CH11. The answer was, "probably not, but it will be close." UAL is going to come out of BK with incredibly low costs, and when the economy begins to turn it should be one of the first financially troubled majors to turn a profit.
I also asked what it would take to make UAL profitable now, and the answer was "to make drastic cuts to the airline similar to the ones made by USAirways." UAL would be profitable now if Tilton does this, but it would be a shell of it's former self. CEO Tilton apparently recognizes the value of the company. For example, their Pacific operation is unprofitable now, but you don't sell it or put RJs on it. You batten down the hatches and wait for the turnaround. Employee and vendor concessions give them the luxury to wait a while for things to improve.

That's all I can remember, but my source's overall impression of the plan was positive. In a nutshell, bad things could still happen, but the posibility of that grows more remote with each passing day. When UAL emerges from CH11, it will do so with extremely low costs for a global airline and with it's route structure and fleet largely intact.

Chip, I guess what I'm trying to do is remind you that people who live in glass houses.....well you know the rest. U is a long way from being out of the woods, yet you choose to ignore it's negatives and instead skew UAL's troubles to fit your posts. If you want to have an effective debate on the issues of UAL's survival then you need to remove all hints of your bias. It doesn't take a genius to see why the UAL employees get defensive about your posts. I'm not a genius, but even I can see how you twist UAL articles around and spout comments from unnamed sources. If I were a UAL employee I would get riled up too.

Regards,

737

----------------​

Sorry, but "we'll be almost profitable" won't fly with the ATSB or the Creditors' Committee. The company has to show that it will turn a PROFIT soon using REASONABLE financial estimates. The b*tch-slap the company received from the ATSB back in December proved that.
 
Avek,

Was USAirways profitable when it received it''s loan guarantee? Where are they hiding all that money?
 
----------------
On 6/17/2003 4:44:26 PM 737nCH11 wrote:

Hi Cosmo,

I found this article today titled "UAL Plan Draws Kudos".
Chances are it will never make it to this board. HA HA

www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/business/article/0,1299,DRMN_4_2044362,00.html

You guys keep up the good work.
Munn states he only posts about UAL because of its relationship with U and how it affects U. If thats the case you would think he might post some positive things about UAL for the very same reasons. It seems strange then that he seldom if evere posts anything positive. I wonder why ? Savy
----------------​
 
Savy,

What we are dealing with here is pure human nature. That is, some people sit around and ponder what will benefit them the most.

UAL fragmenting would certainly help USAirways. U is codesharing with UAL and LH, and will be joining STAR shortly. It stands to reason that, with a downsizing of UAL, U would have tremendous growth potential.

With that being said (refer to my earlier posts), it''s not going to happen. UAL is an airline that caters to business travelers, and as such it understands that to downsize would be suicidal. If UAL shrank or turned over much of it''s flying to RJs, business travelers would simply switch to AMR or DAL. Say what you want about the cheaper operating cost of RJs, but most business people detest them. I fear that USAirways has opened Pandora''s Box on this issue.

Chip slants his posts because it benefits him and paints USAirways in a positive light. All I ask is for people to read the articles he references FULLY and THOROUGHLY, and they will see through these posts like a lace curtain. There is really nothing wrong with what he does because nobody takes these boards seriously. The only negative is that it causes grief among our UAL bretheren. They have been through so much lately, and I believe that it is cruel to have these posts pop up every few days that trash their airline. U employees please remember how you felt when articles predicting your demise were published.

There is an old saying that "you can wish in one hand and crap in the other and see which gets filled first." Lets all please recognize these posts for what they are: wishful thinking.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.