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

[Bear96]

Hmmm... of course Chip wants everyone to believe that this is BAD news for UA by putting "revenue report" in bold type at the top of his post when really the quote refers to one specific type of fare (wonder what relevant information from the actual entire article you chose to omit, Chip?), and the implication is that UA is unable to raise business fares even though they want to... but maybe it is because of this:

----------------------------

New Business Fares Result in Significant Revenue Improvement for United Airlines

March 03, 2003


CHICAGO, March 3, 2003 -- United Airlines (NYSE: UAL) announced today that business passengers have responded well to reductions in business fares introduced on January 6, 2003, positively impacting revenue by $20-$25 million per month.

"This is an excellent example of how United is responding to our customers’ needs," said Doug Hacker, executive vice president-strategy. "Our new business fares are great for customers and good for United’s bottom line. Contrary to some reports in the media, the increase in business passenger volume has more than offset the lower fares."

[Let's repeat for Chip: THE INCREASE IN BUSINESS PASSENGER VOLUME HAS MORE THAN OFFSET THE LOWER FARES.]

The airline initiated the sharply reduced one-way business fares to meet the pricing needs of increasingly cost-conscious business travelers. The new rules allow customers to get up to 40% off the unrestricted coach fares with no advance purchase. For customers able to purchase seven days in advance, the discount is even greater. There are no minimum or Saturday night stay requirements, though discounted tickets are not refundable.

"Passengers have reacted very favorably, because we gave them what they asked for - more affordable fares on the strongest route network in the industry," said Chris Bowers, senior vice president-sales and reservations. "The new fares, coupled with other recent enhancements such as expanded flight availability through our marketing partnership with US Airways, are part of the formula that keeps passengers coming back to United."

United tested the new fare concept extensively on numerous Chicago and Denver routes.

The fares apply to travel in markets to and from Chicago and Denver - the airline’s top two hubs - as well as over 11,500 markets reached through connecting service. Although these fares are non-refundable, confirmed changes can be made for a $100 service fee. Customers can also stand by for free on earlier or later flights on the same day they are ticketed to fly.

United Airlines was rated number one in on-time performance for 2002.

 

[USA320Pilot]

Turnaround expert on United's board

Exec's role at airline is advisory

DENVER (POST) - United Airlines named top turnaround executive Robert "Steve" Miller to its board of directors on Tuesday, a move that observers said strengthens the company's effort to reorganize in bankruptcy.
Complete Story: [url="http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,1413,36~26385~1475260,00.html"]http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,1413,3...1475260,00.html[/URL]


Chip comments: Cosmo and Bear, the news media reports have favorably reacted to Bob Miller's appointment to the UA board and the Denver Post said that most "observers said it strengthens the company's effort to reorganize in bankruptcy", but one has to wonder why this move took so long and what the heck is going on at WHQ. First it's the LCO, then it's focusing on the premium customer. Airline executives keep telling the news media in "staged" interviews conflicting reports on emergence, while cash continues to burn.
Last week Glenn Tilton told employees in his weekly-recorded message that the airline has a four point business plan: focus on the premium customer, optimize the schedule, have a competitive cost structure, and deliver top operational performance.
What's new about this plan? Shouldn't these four components be part of an "on-going" and daily business plan for any company every day, not just in bankruptcy or part of an in-court restructuring?
Today the Denver Post reported the pilots' and machinists' unions gained seats on the board and control over four others through the stock-ownership plan. The result was a weak and conflicted board, a problem that contributed to United's downfall into bankruptcy, according to current and former board members and executives. Well, in my opinion, this may be only getting worse -- from what I've heard.
In my opinion, management may not know what to do to fix the company, management is stuck in quagmire, and time is running out for the airline to meet its DIP revenue and cash flow targets. The reports on the Tilton, Brace, Hacker, and Taylor dispute and no clear cut exit strategy may be getting worse, which I previously broke on this website weeks ago, and maybe that's why two key senior executives resigned after long UA careers within the past two weeks.
Best regards,
Chip

 

[TheLarkAscending]

----------------
On 6/25/2003 10:25:08 AM Chip Munn wrote:


In my opinion, management may not know what to do to fix the company, management is stuck in quagmire, and time is running out for the airline to meet its DIP revenue and cash flow targets. The reports on the Tilton, Brace, Hacker, and Taylor dispute and no clear cut exit strategy may be getting worse, which I previously broke on this website weeks ago, and maybe that's why two key senior executives resigned after long UA careers within the past two weeks

Best regards,
Chip
----------------------
Cosmo & Bear -- My suggestion to you both (although given time, I may not heed my own advice) is to let the crickets chirp beyond a loud din, just as they have on the JetBlue board....

Chip -

Because a message board is not registered in "real time" nor is it read by everyone at the same time on the same day and not even within the same month, no one can break news or information on a static reader-generated message board. It doesn't refresh, have a rolling crawl line, interrupt the reader with updated information, etc. In short, this isn't MSNBC, CNN or CNBC. It is an aviation based website with a forum feature which has been subset into particular genres and topics. Although it is nice that you believe you were capable of such, it is extremely unlikely, if not entirely improbable.

Your continuous interest in the slanting of news to predict United's demise is a puzzle to me. Why do you continuously search for the most negative press or angle and post that view only? Why do you only select that which may agree with your stance and post that portion but nothing else? One might venture that you have a personal vendetta against all of the good people at United. This possibility became of some interest to me, so I did some research into the past posts on this forum, and on some others. The negative theme (particularly slanted against United) in your posts has been a constant. Would you care to explain? Thank you.


----------------

​

 

[Analyst]

Lark,

We are free to express our opinions on this board whether they are positive or negative. The good thing about this board is if one does not like what they are reading they can ignore that poster.

I agree 100% with the comments by Chip regarding UAL. It is not unusal for members of the media to "slant" the news. There is a little item called "freedom of speech" and you should respect this on the message boards.

 

[TheLarkAscending]

----------------
On 6/25/2003 11:34:03 AM Analyst wrote:

Lark,

We are free to express our opinions on this board whether they are positive or negative. The good thing about this board is if one does not like what they are reading they can ignore that poster.

I agree 100% with the comments by Chip regarding UAL. It is not unusal for members of the media to "slant" the news. There is a little item called "freedom of speech" and you should respect this on the message boards.

----------------​

Analyst-
Thank you, kindly, for the refresher course regarding freedoms of expression and thought. Perhaps you should heed your own advice? If you would refer to your post to me, you will note that you are suggesting to me that I respect the thoughts of others but not express my own, whether they be negative or positive. Yet you make the point of stating that if I disagree, I should ignore that poster because that would be respectful. Might the same advice be bestowed upon you, subsequent to your reading of my post? Quite an interesting and ironic twist, no?

If you would care to re-read my original post, you should be able to note that I have never stated my opinions regarding United or US Airways there. You have assumed that I dislike or have objections to the slant of the subject matter. The fact is, I have noted a constant in said poster's particular position, and have posed questions for which I would appreciate candid answers. I did not request that the aforementioned cease or change the opinions. Rather, I'd requested a focused perspective on why the poster consistently does that which has been, historically, noted. Curiosity is something I'm sure you would not deny me. Given that we have freedom of choice and expression, that deprivation would not be in your control, would it?

One last thought, Analyst: You've stated: "It is not unusual for members of the media to "slant" the news". The aforementioned is not a member of the press, news media, a professional journalist, nor a cub reporter. Therefore, we shall have to agree that that particular point is, logically, inconsequential.

Have a wonderful day!

 

[ual06]

Actually the most recent news break Chip refers to came out about 24 hours before he posted
on it. The current link he shows is a slightly altered version of the original release. Too bad.
But perhaps good. He would not have slept at all last night.

 

[Cosmo]

Reuters came out with a moderately positive article this afternoon regarding US Airways'' code-sharing business partner United''s recent changes at the Board and senior officer level. It notes that Tilton is quietly changing the carrier''s corporate culture by basically installing a whole new team to bring the carrier out of bankruptcy, on the theory that those officers and directors who were in place as United tumbled into bankruptcy are not likely to be the ones to bring the carrier out. Only time will tell if these changes at the top of United''s corporate structure will accomplish that goal, since the carrier still must stop the monthly operating losses and settle upon a viable strategy to attract the funds (whether debt or equity, or some of both) to emerge from bankruptcy. IMHO, we should have a clearer picture of United''s prospects by the end of the summer.

Here''s the Reuters article.

 

[Bear96]

Chip, in general I tend to agree many of your points in the assessment of UA''s "plan" that you posted at 1025 this morning (though some of what you wrote make it clear you don''t quite have a grasp of what is going on at UA-- either that or you are purposely trying to portray UA as more of a basket case than it really is-- not that you would do that, of course).

However, as I keep on saying (but as you either continue to choose to ignore or are incapable of understanding), my problem is more how you present your information and seem to be out only to bash UA at every step of the way. That is the last time I will make that point. I am sure you will continue to ignore it and not acknowledge it, and try to continue to get me to defend UA''s management blunders.

Your obsession with the negative aspects of UA continues to strike me as strange, to say the least.

And your recent posts on the jetBlue board about the Embraer order are stranger still, since in the past you have had the tendency to get in a tizzy and "not understand" why UA employees post on the U board, thinking that a certain airline''s employees should only post on that airline''s board, and bragging that you only post on the U board.

Guess your "business plan" about posting on other airline''s boards has recently undergone a change too, huh?

 

[USFlyer]

----------------
On 6/25/2003 449 PM Bear96 wrote:

And your recent posts on the jetBlue board about the Embraer order are stranger still, since in the past you have had the tendency to get in a tizzy and "not understand" why UA employees post on the U board, thinking that a certain airline''s employees should only post on that airline''s board, and bragging that you only post on the U board.

----------------​

The moderators moved that thread. Chip had started it under the US board.

 

[Bear96]

US Flyer, thanks for that info, I was unaware of that. My apologies to Chip for the comments pertaining to that.

 

[ohcaptainron]

UAL WILL REPORT IN THE NEXT SEVERAL DAYS SOME VERY POSITIVE REVENUE AND CASH FLOW NEWS ALONG WITH THE FACT THAT THE JUNE DIP GATES WILL BE EASILY MET. SORRY CHIP, YOU ARE THE WEAKEST LINK.

 

[ITRADE]

God. This thread is still alive????

Will the last one out please shut off the lights.

 

[Cosmo]

Sorry, ITRADE, but I''ve got to add one more thing.

US isn''t UA''s only domestic alliance partner -- see this United/Pepsi press release that was just issued.

 

[Bear96]

FINALLY!!!!!

The Unique / Interesting Corporate Transaction is revealed!

 

[Cosmo]

There was an article with the headline, "United hiring outsiders for top jobs", in today''s Rocky Mountain News (Denver) that discussed the new management team Tilton has brought to United. Mostly positive comments, although there also were some negative ones, particularly about Tague.

Here''s the article.