Bad news

[ual06]

Wow! Some of these threads are getting better than the Sunday Comics. Hang in there Ukridge.

 

[USA320Pilot]

Ukridge & Cosmo:

I find your comments to be one from a "sophist", but maybe that’s to be expected. What’s interesting to me is that you refuse to admit you’re wrong, which takes a special person because they have to admit this to them self. In regard to your comment about taking offense, obviously you do not know me…

Cosmo, I find it interesting that UA has the industry worst revenue and sets a record load factor. Do you see a problem here? Moreover, every carrier has very high load factors, which I see on a daily basis. Again, the ATA reported the industry summer revenue is below forecast and fall bookings are discouraging, which could cause UA to violate its bankruptcy loan covenants this fall. By the way, who first reported on this website, before the information was provided to UA MEC Chairman Paul Whiteford, that UA’s business plan would have about 6,000 active line pilots?


In regard to the UA & US comparison, which is presumably throwing stones because the author does not like the news I present (which is understandable from an employee perspective), is partially because US has reduced its ASMs by about 30% to better match capacity with demand. This reduction will be back filled by MidAtlantic Airways and other RJ operators, which is part of the reason US was approved by the ATSB for the loan guarantee, unlike other carriers. This has contributed to US going from a 93 to 94% revenue disadvantage to its peers, to having the highest yield RPM., whereas UA is dead last in yeild RPM. I believe instead of focusing on load factors and discounted fares, maybe it would be better to focus on earnings and meeting DIP covenants.

Regardless, I'm not going to pay "tit for tat", however, I believe its important to discuss issues from a macroeconomic perspective versus trying to throw stones.

Best regards,

Chip

 

[Fly]

Please help me here, cuz I'm confused. Are there people posting on the UAL boards that do NOT work at UAL? Oh my! We better inform WHQ to stop posting our business plan on here, otherwise one of our competitors may snatch it away.

 

[767jetz]

----------------
On 7/8/2003 402 PM Chip Munn wrote:



What’s interesting to me is that you refuse to admit you’re wrong, which takes a special person because they have to admit this to them self.

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

​

Hello, pot? This is Kettle. I think you''re black!

 

[TheLarkAscending]

UK, because it is you, I will break from the silence and state that your words have never offended anyone that has the ability to read and recognize humour and wit. The ability to laugh at oneself and have a sense of humour is a key to balanced living. You have always been a breath of fresh air on the forum, please continue to grace us with your thoughts!

I anxiously await the new forum with the much desired ignore button.

 

[Fly]

.

 

[Fly]

iflyjetz and 767 jetz.....why aren''t you this funny when we are flying.....rofl..............

 

[iflyjetz]

----------------
On 7/8/2003 426 PM 767jetz wrote:

----------------
On 7/8/2003 402 PM Chip Munn wrote:

What’s interesting to me is that you refuse to admit you’re wrong, which takes a special person because they have to admit this to them self.
----------------

​

Hello, pot?  This is Kettle.  I think  you''re black!

----------------​

Arrrgh! As soon as I read that line, I thought, ''pot, meet kettle.'' You beat me to the punch, 767.
Has Chippie ever admitted to being wrong? Ever? Surely after his predictions that UAL buying U was a ''slam dunk'' fell through? Nope. Never.
When UAL emerges from Chap 11 WITHOUT selling off assets, will Chippie admit that he was wrong? Nope. Never.
I guess that makes Chippie a ''special person.''
When I was a child, my mother told me that ''special people'' rode on the short school bus. A lot of them also wore hockey helmets.

 

[767jetz]

----------------
On 7/8/2003 7:37:41 PM Fly wrote:

iflyjetz and 767 jetz.....why aren''t you this funny when we are flying.....rofl..............

----------------​

What makes you think we''re not?


I learned years ago when I was at TWA, that you have to have fun in this job. It''s not the first time I''ve been at the bottom of the industry.

 

[767jetz]

----------------
On 7/8/2003 7:12:59 PM iflyjetz wrote:

When I was a child, my mother told me that ''special people'' rode on the short school bus. A lot of them also wore hockey helmets.

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

​

You''re killing me here! You really slay me!

 

[Cosmo]

----------------
On 7/8/2003 402 PM Chip Munn wrote:

Ukridge & Cosmo:

I find your comments to be one from a "sophist", but maybe that's to be expected. What's interesting to me is that you refuse to admit you're wrong, which takes a special person because they have to admit this to them self. In regard to your comment about taking offense, obviously you do not know me...
----------------​

"Sophist" -- wow, I had to look that one up:

Sophist / n. Captious or clever but fallacious reasoner (source: The Oxford Desk Dictionary, American Edition [sorry, Ukridge

And then I had to look up "Captious."

Captious / adj. Faultfinding (source: The Oxford Desk Dictionary, American Edition, 1995).

Congratulations, Chip, it's been a long time since I've had to look up one, much less two, words that have been part of an Internet chat room discussion. You're more erudite than I had thought -- well done!

Seriously, so I'm a sophist? Well, I disagree, but you're entitled to your opinion. I'll try not to lose any sleep over it. However, it would be very enlightening if you could show me where I "refuse to admit [I'm] wrong." Please provide one or more specific quotes of mine that indicate a factual error, not just a difference of opinion.

And BTW, you don't know me either, so be careful with the accusations.

----------------
On 7/8/2003 402 PM Chip Munn wrote:

Cosmo, I find it interesting that UA has the industry worst revenue and sets a record load factor. Do you see a problem here? Moreover, every carrier has very high load factors, which I see on a daily basis. Again, the ATA reported the industry summer revenue is below forecast and fall bookings are discouraging, which could cause UA to violate its bankruptcy loan covenants this fall.
----------------​

Do I see a problem here? Yeah, I do -- you are comparing June 2003 load factor data with industry yield data that comes from an Avmark report for which you admitted that you didn't know what period it covered (and it certainly does not cover June 2003), whether it covered domestic or system operations, or whether the yield data was adjusted for average passenger trip length (incidentally, did you know that UA's system average passenger trip length was 1,552 miles in June 2003 while US' was only 958, and would that have an effect on the two carriers' respective yield and RASM numbers?). It's an "apples-and-oranges" comparison, which sure seems "sophist" to me.

And as for any summer and fall traffic forecasts, well, they're just that -- forecasts. We will need to wait and see how accurate they are and the extent to which the resulting traffic (and yield) numbers help or hinder UA's efforts to emerge from bankruptcy. Also keep in mind that the forecasts that you mention are for the entire industry as a whole, not for just one particular airline which may do better or worse than the industry average result. For instance, it is possible that UA (and NW) will do better than average due to an expected rebound in Pacific traffic figures as the effects of the SARS epidemic fade away. So that sounds like another "sophist" argument on your part.

----------------
On 7/8/2003 402 PM Chip Munn wrote:

By the way, who first reported on this website, before the information was provided to UA MEC Chairman Paul Whiteford, that UA's business plan would have about 6,000 active line pilots?
----------------​

It's very hard for me to believe that you knew this information before Whiteford, a former UA BOD member, knew it. However, I'll defer to the UA pilots who know much more about it than I do and let them address this issue.

----------------
On 7/8/2003 402 PM Chip Munn wrote:

In regard to the UA & US comparison, which is presumably throwing stones because the author does not like the news I present (which is understandable from an employee perspective), is partially because US has reduced its ASMs by about 30% to better match capacity with demand. This reduction will be back filled by MidAtlantic Airways and other RJ operators, which is part of the reason US was approved by the ATSB for the loan guarantee, unlike other carriers. This has contributed to US going from a 93 to 94% revenue disadvantage to its peers, to having the highest yield RPM., whereas UA is dead last in yeild RPM. I believe instead of focusing on load factors and discounted fares, maybe it would be better to focus on earnings and meeting DIP covenants.
----------------​

So now who's "shooting the messenger?" I simply posted factual information comparing UA's and US' June load factors, followed by my opinion that the difference in the two carrier's load factors would have likely been greater if UA were not in the midst of bankruptcy proceedings. Is the posting of facts being negative (where have I heard that before?)? And speaking of load factors, which are indeed at historic highs, did you know that in June 2003, seven other major carriers (AA, CO, DL, HP, NW, TZ and UA) and B6 all had higher monthly load factors than did US (source: carrier press releases)? Are these eight carriers, which includes one in bankruptcy (UA) and one that came very close (AA), simply better able to match capacity to demand than US can, despite its own trip through bankruptcy which led to a massive mainline fleet downsizing? Is it being "negative" to pose such questions in light of the available data?

And hang on a second there regarding capacity. Your claim of a 30% reduction in US' ASMs doesn't indicate the periods that you are comparing, although I assume that it's some pre-9/11 period vs. a recent month or quarter. While you may be right (please provide the specific data to support your claim), the most recent data indicates otherwise. In June 2003, US' system ASMs dropped by just 7.3% compared to June 2002 due in large part to a substantial 18% increase in US' international ASMs. Meanwhile, UA's system ASMs declined by 14.2%, nearly twice as much as seen by US, in the same year-over-year comparison. So in combination with UA's higher load factor, it could logically be argued that UA has "better match[ed] capacity with demand" than has US, at least in recent months.

And let's talk about earnings. In May 2003, UA had net earnings of about $64 million (IIRC) after all one-time items, including reorganization costs and a security reimbursement from the government. What were US' net results for the month? And before you say it, I know that US is not required to publicize its monthly P&L results now that it is out of bankruptcy. But why don't you check with your prized sources (I believe you mentioned in another thread that you talked earlier today with a "senior officer" on the 8th floor of US' CCY headquarters) to find out? And you don't even need to give a specific number, just whether the net result was positive or negative, and if positive, whether it was the same, higher or lower than UA's net earnings. Whatever it turns out to be, it should nonetheless make for an interesting comparison. And remember, this discussion of earnings was your idea, so an answer of "Sorry, that data is confidential" is unacceptable and will likely be seen by many readers of this discussion, myself included, as a blow to the credibility of both yourself and your sources.

----------------
On 7/8/2003 402 PM Chip Munn wrote:

Regardless, I'm not going to pay "tit for tat", however, I believe its important to discuss issues from a macroeconomic perspective versus trying to throw stones.
----------------​

Frankly, IMHO playing "tit for tat" and "throw[ing] stones" is precisely what you did in your post (the forecasts of summer revenues and fall bookings, the comment about "knowing" the UA pilot numbers before Whiteford, and the change in US unit revenues compared to its peers, to name three examples), so don't try to deny it. Moreover, you continue to post almost exclusively negative news about UA, which really isn't too hard to do since there's been a lot of it lately (and you're correct that UA still has numerous challenges to overcome before it can emerge from bankruptcy). But most positive news about UA does not seem to register on your radar screen, which is odd for someone who repeatedly claims to be concerned about the future of "US' code-sharing business partner." So as I see it, you're clearly biased against UA. And you know what, that's fine -- you're obviously free to take any position and post anything you like here (within the USaviation.com rules) since this is just an Internet chat room. But your assertions of impartiality or that you're simply being a neutral observer thus ring hollow, and you certainly can't claim to occupy the moral high ground in this debate.

 

[USA320Pilot]

I have no interest in posting on the UA message board and entering into a "tit for tat" debate. I simply posted on this forum because I was told told about Ukridge''s threads and decided to venture into the fray.

In regard to UA''s record load factor announcement, how much of this uptick was due to the "fly free" promotion? Let''s not forget UA is offering first and business class passengers a free ticket to one of its 650 destinations when they buy a qualifying international round-trip ticket. In addition, the airline is offering an unlimited number of free economy award tickets that can be earned through this offer.

The real issue is will RASM and yield increase? If not, who cares how many passengers an airline has if it can''t make money?

Best regards,

Chip

 

[Ukridge]

In the spirit of full disclosure I must admit whilst at university I was among a group that called ourselves “The Young Sophists.†We prided ourselves on the ability to take almost any topic and argue it from either side, no matter how thin the support. Indeed it was speciousness at its best and no problems were ever solved but we had a good time in the give and take of the word play.
Yet, now just as the French military did at the beginning of the 1900s, Cosmo and I find ourselves in the dock. This time however, it is not the famous French writer Zola thundering across the ages with his damming “J’accuse†in reference to the Dreyfus Affaire, but rather Chip Munn bellowing across the Internet his “J’accuse†in labeling us sophists. Not only has our discourse been such as to earn the opprobrium of Mr. Munn in his “sophist†label, but indeed he says “it was to be expected.†For Mr. Munn it seems that it was fully expected in a near ergo propter hoc reaction that we would engage in sophistry. Little may he have realized that the sophists were actually any of the class of 5th century B.C. Greek teachers of rhetoric, philosophy, and the art of successful living. Their arguments were known for their subtlety and were only alleged to be of specious reasoning. Yet, I find the tone in which Cosmo and I were accused of the charges to have been in a most impolitic manner. This of course in addition to Mr. Munn’s literary criticism of which tools of writing I employ (sarcasm, et alia) and my apparent failure in the field of psychology in not being able to determine the actions of Mr. Tilton and their lack of chronological accord with the pronouncements of Mr. Munn.
As for the later, I have a friend who is active in the academic field of psychology. She reported (though her office is not on the 8th floor and she as an academic would love to be quoted on the record!) of ongoing research into determinism. Seems to be that poor old mankind thinks he has a free will, but it may be that he is only programmed with a set of choices that serve as the defaults. In other words, we think we have unlimited options whereas in reality we will often opt for a narrow, preporgrammed range. Obvious perhaps to many, but really of a powerful underlining subtlety. Now, admittedly I am not doing this topic service and it is rather on the leading edge of discussion but it does speak to Mr. Munn’s question of why Mr. Tilton briefed the employees on the challenges. If one would like to also introduce the 18th century Swiss theological view into the discussion then one could possibly combine the leading physiological research and determine motives for his speaking to employees. Perhaps the reason is mundane (no pun intended). I would hazard a guess that a CEO has a responsibility to occasionally speak to his work force. I know that is not quite the conspiratorial reason that some may seek but it may have to do. As for Mr. Tilton’s timing? Perhaps he does indeed wait to see what news is “broken†here on the forum and the United management has to parse its business plan with what the press has reported.
For now we will have to lick our wounds. For me it is off for a few days on business.
Cheers

 

[Cosmo]

----------------
On 7/9/2003 106 AM Chip Munn wrote:

I have no interest in posting on the UA message board and entering into a "tit for tat" debate. I simply posted on this forum because I was told told [sic] about Ukridge''s threads and decided to venture into the fray.
----------------​

You know what they say about when it gets too hot in the kitchen ...

Chip, you accused me of not being able to admit when I was wrong. I disagreed and asked you to provide some specific examples. Your reply ... nothing!

Chip, you labeled me as a "sophist" without giving any examples that would support that accusation. Again, I disagreed and pointed out how some of your own arguments were clear examples of such "sophistry". Your reply ... nothing!

Chip, you accused me of "throwing stones" by bringing up US'' June 2003 load factor, which was somewhat lower than UA''s for that month. I responded by discussing facts about industry load factors during June, and asked a question that put US'' result in an admittedly less-than-favorable light (which, incidentally, is a tactic that you use all the time). Your reply ... nothing!

Chip, you suggested that "instead of focusing on load factors and discounted fares, maybe it would be better to focus on earnings and meeting DIP covenants." I said, OK, "let''s talk about earnings", briefly discussed UA''s May 2003 financial results (more of those unseemly facts), and asked you to check with your "sources" to provide US'' comparable numbers (and even then, only the barest "ballpark" figures). Your reply ... nothing!

It seems that, all too often, when you are presented with facts that don''t comport to your preconceived notions, you simply run away from the discussion. This is just the latest example of that trend. And that''s too bad, because I believe a spirited discussion is a good thing.

----------------
On 7/9/2003 106 AM Chip Munn wrote:

In regard to UA''s record load factor announcement, how much of this uptick was due to the "fly free" promotion?
----------------​

I''m sure that it has some relatively small impact, although I don''t really know how much, do you? Does anybody know, even at UA, at this point in the promotion? But let''s see -- UA gets the cash for three paid tickets in return for a highly restricted ticket that may be used at some point in the future. IMHO, it sounds like a good deal for UA.

----------------
On 7/9/2003 106 AM Chip Munn wrote:

Let''s not forget UA is offering first and business class passengers a free ticket to one of its 650 destinations when they buy a qualifying international round-trip ticket. In addition, the airline is offering an unlimited number of free economy award tickets that can be earned through this offer.
----------------​

This is probably an even better deal for UA -- they get the cash from a premium ticket in return for a highly restricted ticket that may be used at some point in the off-peak future. So what''s the problem?

----------------
On 7/9/2003 106 AM Chip Munn wrote:

The real issue is will RASM and yield increase? If not, who cares how many passengers an airline has if it can''t make money?
----------------​

I agree that RASM and yield increases are important and necessary achievements for UA, as are decreases in CASM. But at the end of the day, profitability and liquidity (or the lack thereof) will determine UA''s likelihood of emerging from bankruptcy and seeing long-term success. And while I''m certainly willing to continue talking about this subject, perhaps this discussion should be put in abeyence for another month or so until the 2nd quarter 2003 SEC Form 10-Qs are available from UA and US (and other carriers), at which point we will know each carrier''s RASM, yield, CASM, profitability and liquidity figures and can then have a more intelligent discussion about them.

 

[767jetz]

WOW, Cosmo! You sir, are on a roll! Excellent posts! I think you have Chip on the run, as evidenced by his lack of thoughtful response.

Keep up the good work...