How Much Of A Profit Would Have U Made?

[ITRADE]

Nice twist of the knife there at the end. Hahahahaha.

 

[usair_begins_with_u]

Funguy, as usual, is right on the money..

The bigger issue is, and why I find pity for those like pitbull, is the wedge of mistrust driven between mgmt and labor.. It's all Wolf Gangwal and Siegals fault..

If Mgmt had treated the unions as partners, and with respect, they would not be in their current quandary.. Begging for concessions, twisting arms, playing class warfare between union groups. Mgmt can't bully labor around the negotiating table, and then expect labor to kiss mgmt ass and play nice when it's convenient for mgmt to play friends.

This is just a story of poor management... Not surprising, I used to work for Uair, and let me tell you, the quality of the managers in CCY is pathetic.. It's not all bad, there are a handful really good managers, but at the director level and above, you have too few leaders, it's mostly the duck and hide types, most of the good ones leave out of disgust.. and it really shows...

 

[cavalier]

You clearly do not understand accounting,

This company is not profitable. Period. You are misrepresenting the facts as much as USA320Pilot does.

[post="169713"][/post]​

When there is no one left to be kept informed and the union membership reaches zero, maybe just maybe the facts will seem a little different but it will also be too late to matter. Incredible, simply incredible! Reality is perception, so whose perception rules? I think most reasonable thinking people know the answer. The title to this topic should be changed to: “They Cooked The Books, Trust Me“.

 

[ktflyhome]

kt,

I started this thread, you can always delete, or ignore button.

Simple soultion for your bordom of we 5. As you find us unstimulating, there are many on here that feel the same way of you, but just don't come out and say it.

We attempt to be more respectful of posters who basically same the same things over and over again, on the opposite view point, and we try (not always successful) in not getting personal (which you have just done)

Again, don't have to bother with this thread. No one is twisting your wrist.

[post="169579"][/post]​

More respectful than others????...go back and read your own posts where you lambast others all the time. It has often amazed me...the disrespect.

More respectful....I have found many, many others, to be every bit, IF not more respectful of your posts.

Personal????........telling it like I see it. Nothing personal mind you.


Many on here do feel the same way I do and have OFTEN said so. Many on here have been a hellava lot more personal about issues than I have.

Ignore???? No one twisting my wrists??? Are you the sole owner here????

Some want to dish it out, but just can't take it. Amazing....truly amazing.

I stand by my original post and look forward to the posts of others who contribute some worthwhile information, insight and logic about U.

 

[PITbull]

You clearly do not understand accounting, no matter how many times its explained to you. Even after it is explained to you, you continue to not believe it. You might as well not believe that George W. Bush is president, just because you don't agree with the election process, but it doesn't change the fact that he is president. Go to your local community college, take Accounting 101, and you will understand.

1. You are right, that US Airways does need to conserve cash. However, they would have broken the loan covenants, the ATSB would have called the loan, and we would not be here to discuss the potential for missing a pension payment, had US Airways not paid down the ATSB-backed loan. I am sure that the $250mil payment was the minimum they could negotiate. Just because the loan was not publicly called, doesn't mean it would not have been. Management did something barely proactive in this case to keep the company afloat.

2. US Airways MUST show profits in order to REPAY the loan. The loan payments will come from CASH generated by running a PROFITABLE airline. Again, accounting 101.

Here is what the company posted so far:

1Q $177Mil Loss
2Q $34 Mil Profit

First 6 months of 2004: $143Mil Loss.
Second 6 months of 2004: Forecast for more losses.

This company is not profitable. Period. You are misrepresenting the facts as much as USA320Pilot does.

[post="169713"][/post]​

Funguy2,

Just out of curiosity, are you HAWK as well on these boards? He just PM'd me with your info.

First I didn't know that you had sole ownership of the crystal ball and can see that the ATSB would have definitely called in the loan if we missed the covenant. America West missed theirs and there was no calling in their ATSB some time ago.

I will say to you this, that when Siegel reported that the loan guarantee was renegotiated and that they paid down the loan, it was a good thing. He never once said to AFA or the media that they would have MISSED the loan test covenant for June without paying it down. Keep in mind, AFA had a few meetings with him BEFORE February. His concern, at that time, was Sept. test covenant.

I can also see that many of my favorite posters have a problem with this thread, and no matter how you try to discredit me, it provoked you enough to dispell any other thinking that is out there that is not your thinking. Hope you can get your job saved. REally I do.

Kt,

Coming from you, actually surprised me. I have enemies on this board as I am very opinionated as many of us are, even on the opposing end.

But I never expected a personal attack from you.

I will not address you again, but keep in mind, your personal work situation and work environment, I did not personally create.

 

[FWAAA]

PitBull must be wondering whatever happened to the $1.63 billion profit from the first quarter of 2003.

 

[funguy2]

1. I am not HAWK or any other poster.

2. My crystal ball is based on common sense. If US Airways was not going to default on the loan covenants, there was no reason to pay down the loan or renegotiate the covenants. Instead, they would have paid whatever the required loan payment was... If you are running out of money and cannot pay your bills, it does not make sense to pay extra on your mortgage.

3. As far as I can tell, America West has not defaulted on its ATSB loan. That was faulty information from USA320Pilot. If you read America West's financials, the expression, "record cash balance," and "one of few profitable airlines" seems to appear every quarter since they changed their fare structure. Meanwhile, US Airways predicted in its original ATSB loan application that it would be profitable in 2004, yet we are standing at a Year-to-Date loss of $143mil, and predictions for continuing losses in the back half of the year... On that basis alone, a renegotiation would have been required.

 

[Walmartgreeter]

Meanwhile, US Airways predicted in its original ATSB loan application that it would be profitable in 2004




I don't have a copy of the application....but I must be wrong, because I thought U was not predicting any profits until 2005. Did we really say to the ATSB we would make money this year? Thanks in advance, Greeter.

 

[funguy2]

Meanwhile, US Airways predicted in its original ATSB loan application that it would be profitable in 2004
I don't have a copy of the application....but I must be wrong, because I thought U was not predicting any profits until 2005. Did we really say to the ATSB we would make money this year? Thanks in advance, Greeter.

[post="170097"][/post]​

My recollection is that is the case... Remember, the original application occurred in 2002, with everything being completed in early 2003 with the BK 1 exit.

I believe the restatement to profits in 2005 came with the March pre-payment and renegotiation.

Certainly, in 2002, everyonr thought that Iraq would be over, the economy spooling up, and the price of oil would be reasonable (i.e. not record highs).

 

[PITbull]

1. I am not HAWK or any other poster.

2. My crystal ball is based on common sense. If US Airways was not going to default on the loan covenants, there was no reason to pay down the loan or renegotiate the covenants. Instead, they would have paid whatever the required loan payment was... If you are running out of money and cannot pay your bills, it does not make sense to pay extra on your mortgage.

3. As far as I can tell, America West has not defaulted on its ATSB loan. That was faulty information from USA320Pilot. If you read America West's financials, the expression, "record cash balance," and "one of few profitable airlines" seems to appear every quarter since they changed their fare structure. Meanwhile, US Airways predicted in its original ATSB loan application that it would be profitable in 2004, yet we are standing at a Year-to-Date loss of $143mil, and predictions for continuing losses in the back half of the year... On that basis alone, a renegotiation would have been required.

[post="170087"][/post]​

However, another viewpoint and perception to your #2 of why the co. paid down the loan, could also have been to get rid of cash, in order to achieve another higher cost savings from labor by September....dumping $250 million and showing a loss for the quarter in order to get a savings of $800 million in the future from labor is quite an interesting view point. And the beauty of it is to justify another BK....truly the key.

And so, here we are. labor has to come up with $800 million, and we are going into BK probably within two weeks as Bronner states.

But hey, like you imply, my math is fuzzy, accounting sucks, and I'm just an "out of this world" conspiracist".

 

[funguy2]

PITBull:

Your conspiracy theory could be true... If you can prove it, you can set up a class-action lawsuit on behalf of the shareholders acusing US Airways management of breech of fiducerary duty. Management's #1 job is to protect the interests of the shareholders... Going to BK court and eliminating the stock represents a failure to protect the interests of the shareholders. If management is purposefully eliminating shareholder value, as you suggest, they can and should be be held legally responsible. I cannot think that management would put themselves at risk. Especially that obviosly. But who knows, WestJet's management was likely stealing load information from Air Canada, which I would have never thought possible...

 

[cavalier]

I cannot think that management would put themselves at risk. Especially that obviosly. But who knows, WestJet's management was likely stealing load information from Air Canada, which I would have never thought possible...

[post="170242"][/post]​

I can agree we don't have the best people running this airline, as they say the proof in in the pudding, but I also can't believe they are total morons and would put themselves at risk when they are being watched with a magnifying glass.

Like you say, nothing is impossible, but it would floor me.

 

[PITbull]

Saw Co. second proposal to AFA tonight.

Made me sick.

These are abrogation proposals.

This is a damn conspiracy...its time for our destiny.