Airline Executives Meet

[USA320Pilot]

It's my understanding that senior executives from US Airways, United, and now a third airline will be meeting in Chicago today and tomorrow to discuss different M&A scenarios. It's unclear at this point how this will proceed and what will ultimately be decided, however, the only company that does not have say in its future destiny is United due to the company remaining in bankruptcy. With the company in bankruptcy, dependent upon what the court decides, another airline or investor group could submit its own POR or the company could submit a POR supporting a corporate transaction.

Furthermore, from a CBA fragmentation perspective, United ALPA has 50% protection and US Airways ALPA 85% protection. Therefore, if less than 50% of United's assets are divested to an airline, the United pilots do not need to transfer with the equipment, but on the other hand, if more than 15% of US Airways assets are sold, then pilots would have contractual rights to transfer with those aircraft. The two pilot CBAs make it easier for United to be sold to multiple carriers versus US Airways.

Also noteworthy, the recent US Airways loan guarantee revision makes it easier for the Arlington-based airline to sell assets and for the carrier to be involved in M&A activity. The company recently prepaid $250 million, causing the remaining outstanding loan balance to be reduced to $726 million, which is $226 million above the $500 million loan limit the ATSB imposed on the carrier before the board will permit the company to be involved in M&A activity.

Therefore, if US Airways sells assets such as PSA, Allegheny/Piedmont, RJ delivery positions, and some other non-core assets, the company could pay down the guaranteed loans to $500 million and then be free to unilaterally enter into a corporate transaction.

United Asks Judge for Extension

Reorganization Plan Won't Be Ready Until Late Summer, Carrier Says

WASHINGTON (Post) - UAL Corp.'s United Airlines yesterday asked a bankruptcy court judge for more time to complete its reorganization, saying it needs an additional two months or so to shore up its pension plan and get a response on its bid for federal loan guarantees.

See Story

Regards,

USA320Pilot

 

[USA320Pilot]

Moderators:

Please do not hijack this thread too. This news is about US Airways and as such, belongs on this versus another airlines’ board.

Thanks.

USA320Pilot

 

[USA320Pilot]

The Wall Street Journal reported on March 9, ten days ago, the US Airways 'triage now under way revolves around talks with the federal board that provided $900 million of guarantees to back the $1 billion bankruptcy-exit loan. US Airways is hoping to restructure the deal so it can stay in compliance with covenants that will be measured on June 30. "We'll do anything to comply with the loan," says Mr. Siegel. That could involve paying down some of the principal early with cash on hand or with proceeds from assets sales. The loan board declined to comment.

The article said CEO (Dave Siegel) won't comment on whether US Airways has been approached by a potential buyer. He says his focus is on fixing the company on a stand-alone basis, "so we're a more attractive partner" when the "necessary, logical and inevitable" consolidation occurs.

Respectfully,

USA320Pilot

 

[USA320Pilot]

The March 17 US Airways MEC code-a-phone recorded message said, "The MEC reconvened its regular first quarter meeting today and held MEC officer elections. The results are as follows:

Captain Bill Pollock was reelected MEC Chairman.
Captain Kim Snider was reelected MEC Vice Chairman.
Captain Mike D’Angelo was reelected MEC Secretary-Treasurer.

Their two-year terms are effective March 22.

In a press release issued this afternoon, Captain Pollock stated that the officers “look forward to participating in the creation of a revised business plan."

Regards,

USA320Pilot

 

[Just Plane Crazy]

It's my understanding that senior executives from US Airways, United, and now a third airline will be meeting in Chicago today and tomorrow to discuss different M&A scenarios. It's unclear at this point how this will proceed and what will ultimately be decided, however, the only company that does not have say in its future destiny is United due to the company remaining in bankruptcy. With the company in bankruptcy, dependent upon what the court decides, another airline or investor group could submit its own POR or the company could submit a POR supporting a corporate transaction.

What is wrong by UA and U meeting to discuss a strategie. And could the third airline be another STAR partner? Take it a little easy.

And if UA has no say in regard to it's future then they must be dead. As long as the airline is not in Chapter7 they have an active role in their future. It all depends on the management and the employees and if they can find a common ground and walk into the same direction. As long as some employees (represented by Unions) try to walk in seperate directions (just the employees) how can any one make heads and tails of what is happening. All of them and I am not defending the management has to compromise.

So again to the management. They are there to plan and get their friends and partners together in order to discuss strategie and future as well as learn from the past.

So cool your jets and dont see a conspiracy around every corner!

 

[stoopidute442]

We should rename this thread
Deleted Ramblings and dreams

 

[iflyjetz]

Sooooo, this would be labeled as a _CT? ICT? Nope; used already. UCT? Nope; used already.
How about a TCT; Triage Corporate Transaction. Yeah, that's it. Does that work for you, Chip?
BTW, thanks for letting me know that when UAL gets fragmented, I won't be going with the assets. I appreciate you letting me know that in advance of UAL's demise so that I can look for alternative employment. I've been working on my 'would you like fries with that?' I've also been working on 'then how about an apple pie' when they say no. I think the extra effort makes me a shoe-in for the vacancy in an exciting and expanding career field. http://load.pquinn.com/binaries/fries/


It's a good thing that this wouldn't be labeled as a windup topic.

 

[PITbull]

If we are going to keep "buying down theATSB loan", why and the hell did we apply for it? We haven't even had it a a year.


And some of you think this was not a conspiracy theory about hammering labor down to a pulp??? aaahhhhh yea, right.

 

[Furloughedagain]

Wouldn't it be neat if the SEC had a certain frequent poster arrested (still dont know why we cant use first names) and he ended up being Martha Stewart's room-mate...

Maybe Martha could make him her girlfriend. :blink:

 

[EyeInTheSky]

Was there a full moon last night? Seems USA320Pilot posts A LOT when the rest of us mortals slumber. The fact that USA320Pilot claims there is a CCY "Deep Throat" telling him this stuff is pretty funny or pathetic.

 

[E-TRONS]

The writing is on the wall. Dave LORENZO gave all the subtle indications of what is to come.

This company has been drastically reduced in almost every way. Keep in mind that when you reduce ASM your cost per seat mile INCREASES. We used to have 400 planes in the fleet......now 279. What sort of restructuring math is that? I thought the object of the game was to make money with lower costs. However, this restructuring has raised costs in some ways indeed. Why?

The attack on labor has been just that. Blatent disregard of the CBA's is proof enough. Now they want more from an already pick-pocketed workforce. Why? I thought the first round of concessions provided the company with the tools to become profitable (Dave's words)? Yet the picture continually is being repainted even before the first coat becomes dry. That my friend's is a fine example of the deception brought to you by our big-fat-liar management!!

Make no mistake about it. Dave & Dave have no intentions of trying to go it alone. They are reducing U-S Airways down to a level of insignificance. This is setting the stage for little if any governmental anti-trust concerns WHEN a merger or aquisition occurs......and it will (again, Dave's words). The question is with or by whom??

My bet is UAL due to the ongoing obsession to join these two "well oiled machines" <_< . You can say all you want to the contrary but many things have changed since Wolf tried to ramrod a deal. I think the notion of a M or A would generate little if any concern with our government given the state of the industry as a whole. It will also take care of that pesky in-house maintenance issue we have because UAL has 100% plus 20% maintenance farmout in place. How nice.
It will only be a matter of time before we know for certain. Meanwhile, the fear mongering and deception will continue on.

That brings us back to our wages and benefits. They are systematically being driven down simply to make the company more attractive to any buyer that might want keep some employees around. Keep in mind that the purchasing entity might not have all sorts of cash on hand in the first place. It's just more lipstick for the pig. Bacon anyone ??

Denial is a terrible thing to live with. I have never in my 20+ years in aviation, witnessed so many people in denial. We will be bought or sold in sections....period. Get that into your heads. We are the next TWA and we all know what happened over there.

But what about PIT and MAA?? 10 firmly leased gates with 40 month to month? What about the escape clause for the maintenance facilities agreement? It can all be sold or dealt in some sort of deal. Remember.....EVERYTHING is on the table and it means exactly that. We are all liabilities in the eyes of the bean counters and that will never change. You can take that to the bank.

Bring on the retorts !!

 

[PITbull]

ETRONS,

You are 100% correct. Folks need to get it in their heads that next time this year we will look quite different, with new names on our planes. Most of us won't be included.

Keep in mind that some unions have "change in control language" still present in the summer restruc. agreements. ALPA gave it up in the winter and so did IAM.

AFA, TWU did not. They want us to the table I'm sure. <_<

 

[magsau]

320,

I am so glad that we at UAL have no future to look forward to. Just wish I could trade places with you and be as happy and as secure as you are.
NOT!

Dude,

You need to get over yourself and your "insider" information. How much longer before you retire? If you are not counting the days I am sure your co-pilots are. :down:

 

[uza]

AFA, TWU did not. They want us to the table I'm sure. <_<

In a short time we will see you there at the table so we can get past these difficult times and move forward.

Regards....UZA

 

[jimntx]

As an outsider, I wish you all the best for the future. Several allusions have been made to the purchase of TWA by AA. There are those who make the argument that our (AA-TWA) situation was different because it was a purchase rather than a merger; so, integration of the represented groups could be handled differently. That's for the courts to sort out, or not.

My questions are...
Have any of you at UA or U sat down and looked at the respective CBAs for your "craft" and thought about how the merger of the two groups would be integrated? Pilots? Mechanics?

I think the flight attendants at both airlines are represented by AFA. Does this make the integration easier? harder?

Do you have situations where the work area is represented at one airline, but not at the other? For instance, gate agents at AA are non-union, but they are at other airlines.

With the size of the two entities--UA and U--it just looks like a nightmare project from the outside.