Will United Get The Loan
- Thread starter Fly
- Start date
- Status
You can never be sure in politics. So I will be happy to see them get the guarantee, but not too surprised if they don't.
What I do have control over is a no vote for Bush in 04.
Go here:
/index.php?showtopic=9994
What I do have control over is a no vote for Bush in 04.
Go here:
/index.php?showtopic=9994
JetClipper
Advanced
- Joined
- May 2, 2004
- Messages
- 149
- Reaction score
- 0
Oops!
>>>>If United doesn't, it's my opinion that bin Laden can claim a victory. <<<<
Don't be rediculous. UAL's history of mediocre to lousy management is the reason UAL got to where it is and, IF they fail and go out of business.
Business Dariwnism should be allowed to take place without government input or interference. It would make for a stronger and healthier industry.
Don't be rediculous. UAL's history of mediocre to lousy management is the reason UAL got to where it is and, IF they fail and go out of business.
Business Dariwnism should be allowed to take place without government input or interference. It would make for a stronger and healthier industry.
The loan was set up for ALL airlines to apply for. Therefore, United is completely in their rights to go about getting it. Airlines received that loan who were never impacted to the degree that United was....United deserves it more. It's not a question of whether the other airlines like it, it's a matter of do they qualify?
Fly,
You are correct in saying the loan guarentee was set up for ALL air carriers. There were some airlines that did recieve the loan, sure they didn't lose 2 planes that day, but they were impacted by the government shut down the same as every other airline. AA lost 2 planes that same day, yet they never applied for the loan. Bottom line is as Boeingguy says......Your management made some very bad mistakes that hurt the airline prior to 9/11. I'm not saying you won't get the guarentee, but you don't need to try and convince us that because you lost 2 airplanes you are where you are today. If it makes you feel better, great!! The rest of us however, know better.
You are correct in saying the loan guarentee was set up for ALL air carriers. There were some airlines that did recieve the loan, sure they didn't lose 2 planes that day, but they were impacted by the government shut down the same as every other airline. AA lost 2 planes that same day, yet they never applied for the loan. Bottom line is as Boeingguy says......Your management made some very bad mistakes that hurt the airline prior to 9/11. I'm not saying you won't get the guarentee, but you don't need to try and convince us that because you lost 2 airplanes you are where you are today. If it makes you feel better, great!! The rest of us however, know better.
No, I'm not saying that the other airlines weren't devastated by the events too. Not at all. I'm saying that the loan was intended for airlines hurt by 9/11. There were some very strict "strings" attached to that loan (which is why some airlines, AA, chose not to go for it). Some airlines that received the loan would not be here had it not been for the loan. And others who didn't receive it, are no longer with us. Now these same airlines that were pulled from deaths door are lobbying for United not to receive the loan too. That, in my opinion, is wrong. United was more impacted then any of them, that is a FACT. No where do I remember reading that the loan was only intended for airlines with healthy spreadsheets on 9/10, otherwise none of the others would have needed the loan either.
What I believe you don't understand is that your management had made many bad decision prior to 9/11 which led to the downslide of UAL. Because of the way the planes were lost, many people chose not to fly. Which hurt "all" air carriers the same. Anytime there is an airplane crash a certain amount of people will stop flying. This combined with a slowing economy and numerous mistakes by your management just accelerated your slide. Ask AA how there bookings were after the WTC disaster and then the JFK crash. I'm sure those bookings went down (although I don't have specific numbers). The only difference is there management didn't make the critical series of errors yours did prior to 9/11. Even without the WTC disaster you would most likely be where you are today.Fly said:
But that isn't the point. The point is: ALL the airlines that asked for the loan were struggling before 9/11. If the company was healthy before 9/11, they wouldn't have needed the loan. Therefore, United shouldn't be singled out for bad decisions prior to 9/11.
Fly,
Not all airlines that received the loan were struggling before 9-11. Granted, AWA would no longer be around if it weren't for the ATSB loan and U would have probably never exited BK the first time. F-9 applied and got the loan as a defensive measure, expecting UA to receive the loan and use it to kill them. When UA was denied the ATSB loan, F-9 quickly repaid it. They never touched the money.
Not all airlines that received the loan were struggling before 9-11. Granted, AWA would no longer be around if it weren't for the ATSB loan and U would have probably never exited BK the first time. F-9 applied and got the loan as a defensive measure, expecting UA to receive the loan and use it to kill them. When UA was denied the ATSB loan, F-9 quickly repaid it. They never touched the money.
- Status
