Ultimately, the statistics say that United will not be a long term survivor.
Link? Only thing I've been reading is that US may re-enter bk and Delta is stepping in next. Where is the link that says United won't be a long term survivor?
Ultimately, the statistics say that United will not be a long term survivor.
Why the schadenfreude?Fly said:Oh, in other words, it's just a dream of yours 😀 So sorry, too bad Delta is next.
Here's why: <_<mweiss said:Why the schadenfreude?
US and UA will probably long be gone by the time Indy fails.
Ultimately, the statistics say that United will not be a long term survivor.
you are correct in that UA and US seem unable to find the business model that works for them. Delta and AMR seem far more likely to to get it right the first time.
With all due respect, Delta and United are entirely different companies. United was a disaster waiting to happen and that was apparent from their financial statements months in advance.
Despite UA employees' boastings, I am highly skeptical that United will ever be the grand dame she once was. US is plain for all the world to see as is all the case studies in history.
Remember, there is no ATSB loan opportunity for DL which is the only hope UAL has of pulling out of its nosedive.
UAL has many options they can exercise before they will liquidate but they will have to begin selling some of their valuable route authorities, which will necessitate a dramatic overhaul of their business plan. I also think that Delta could turn out to be the real dark horse that emerges in picking up any United assets that become available.
Other carriers are more than capable of operating every route United serves.
UAL is still in the worst shape in this regard among the network carriers.
UA's plan is clear: get an ATSB loan, kill US, and run away with their assets. It won't work.
The above responses only show that there are many people who think that the government should get out of the business of propping up failing business, despite UA employees' best efforts to convince us otherwise.
History has shown and the next several weeks will bear out that the world will go on without United Airlines if the government so decides to deny the loan.
In reality, pulling the plug on UAL is not at all likely to affect the Nov election
Part of what makes so many people detest United is their "we are so important" mindset which is conveyed in the CEO reply to the WSJ journal article
United has got to realize that stiffing LAX and SFO for a couple hundred million dollars does nothing to endear California politicians to them. This is so typical of UAL management
This shows that UA will screw its partner in order to ensure its own success.
A new paint job and ad campaign won't turn UAL around.
you're right, the golden goose analogy is dead... in fact the golden goose is on life support and the priests are standing by to give last rites.
I would agree that the industry isn't completely "stable", but the reality is that in a competitive environment, it should not be. But the industry is "stable" from the perspective that we are no longer fearing that the entire industry will go bankrupt. There was a time (9/11/01 - mid 2002), when some folks believed that every major airline in the country (except Southwest) would go bankrupt. We have come a long way from that point. Heck, we even have several airlines posting profits!herkav8r said:Funnyguy,
Last time I check Delta is looking pretty scarey, ATA and Frontier both lost money, US Air is looking at BK again. American still has issues. So the industry really isn't "stabilized" just quite yet.
Also, the terrorist are still having an effect on the US airlines by the terrorist strikes in the Middle East. These oil prices are having a damning effect on everyone but Southwest and JetBlue.
As for Airtran, well their fares are cheap, but I am not totally sold on their product. I flew in their business class last week and they didn't even have limes for my rum and coke. Now that is no frills.
I've assumed all along that any loan (even a federally guaranteed one) would require an equity investment by someone; usually, smart lenders don't allow large debt without someone investing their own money and placing it at risk. And the $400 million not covered by the guarantee isn't what I'm talking about.funguy2 said:WorldTraveller: Your idea that UAL be required to find an equity partner combined with an ATSB guarantee is not a bad idea... I wonder if the board members will come up with that recommendation.
FWAAA:FWAAA said:I've assumed all along that any loan (even a federally guaranteed one) would require an equity investment by someone; usually, smart lenders don't allow large debt without someone investing their own money and placing it at risk. And the $400 million not covered by the guarantee isn't what I'm talking about.
RSA invested a couple hundred million or more in UAir, and unless someone steps up with a few hundred million to invest in UAL, I'm betting that the federal loan application goes nowhere.
But I've been wrong before.