Is it me or do I smell merger?

[PITbull]

----------------
On 7/17/2003 2:32:21 PM gilbertguy wrote:

UA predicts that it will leave BK in Q4 ''03 or Q1 ''04....this is not too far off. Money? UA plans to get that U.S loan and it CAN be used to purchase another carrier. US is destined to be what Dave wants it to be. A regional carrier feeding UA and Star Alliance....

----------------​

That''s it in a "nutshell".

 

[usfliboi]

i started this thread talking about usairways and its employees. It wasnt meant to start talking about ual... Even though it could possibly happen my focus is why Dave and company wont focus on making this carrier a stand alone carrier eager to be ran as an airline prosper and grow on its on.

 

[USA320Pilot]

Until recently, when misinformation wa passed on the UA board, the only time I talked about UA was when I introduced a thread. But the UA employees seem to feel the need to come to the US board to discuss their carrier in a US thread.

Interesting...

B737nCH11's comments are clearly wrong and do not reflect the sentiment of US management or Wall Street. US will have a static mainline fleet of 279 aircraft and will use RJs to grow traffic, replace turboprops, and add long-thin markets. In fact, US senior vice president of consumer affairs Chris Chiames told the Pittsburgh Tribune-Reveiw yesterday "Should a hub remain at Pittsburgh, we see the mainline operations being about what it is today, but growth in the operation being from regional jets." It's clear B737 is tired of hearing all of the negative news surrounding UA and if I was in his shoes I'm sure I would feel the same way, but UA may does not have the money to operate in the fall or an investor willing to provide the airline with liquidity yet, therefore, their opportunity ot acquire another airline's assets are slim to none.

Meanwhile, yesterday UA had another Omnibus Hearing and chief financial officer Jake Brace made a number of comments underlined by 767jetz:

767 said: Brace said United, based in Elk Grove Village, Illinois, is holding "preliminary talks" with the Air Transportation Stabilization Board about securing exit financing through a loan guarantee.

Chip comments: This is not new because the airline said its POR would be based on obtaining the loan guarantee. My question is what happens if the ATSB rejects UA again?

767jetz said: Brace declined to comment on whether United was interested in a private equity investment in the airline. But he said: "A lot of people have expressed interest in investing in us."

Chip comments: There are rumors Marvin Davis, TPG, and Carl Icahn are interested in investing in UA. It's to early to tell what will happen because many people are waiting to see UA's results on August 1 and if the company can meets its stringent DIP financing agreements.

Chip concludes: The issue is that in US' in-court restructuring, US had exit financing, conditional loan guarantee approval, and an equity plan sponsor before it entered bankruptcy. However, after nearly 8 months UA has none of this financing in place. However, the major UA issue is what will happen to the DIP financing in a couple of months. This week's industry earnings news and conference calls solidified my thoughts of how poor the fall travel season will be when UA must be cash flow positive. Furthermore, what will happen to UA's pension and if somebody like Carl Icahn comes out of the woods and obtains court approval to buy the airline? Regardless, what else would Jake Brace say to reporters, we're going ot fail and tell people to not book on our airline?

Best regards,

Chip

 

[LavMan]

Chip your information is not correct

Chris Chiames is not Sr VP of Consumer Affairs , he is Senior VP, Corporate Affairs.

There is not position of Sr VP of Consumer Affairs.


Christopher L. Chiames
Senior Vice President - Corporate Affairs











Christopher L. Chiames joined US Airways as senior vice president of corporate affairs in May 2002. He is responsible for the company's government relations and corporate communications functions, including media and employee communications.
He joined US Airways with more than a decade of airline industry experience, most recently leading Burson-Marsteller's transportation and tourism public affairs practice as managing director. Prior to joining


Burson-Marsteller, Chiames served for five years as managing director of public relations at American Airlines. He also has held key government affairs and communications positions with the airline industry's trade group, the Air Transport Association. He began his professional career as press secretary to former House Majority Whip Tony Coelho.
Chiames holds a masters degree in public administration from Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government, a master of arts degree in journalism from the University of Maryland, and a bachelor of arts degree in journalism, with a minor in business, from California State University, Fresno.

 

[DCAflyer]

767jetz, you haven''t answered my questions. I never said that UAL wasn''t having discussions with the Feds about obtaining approval for the government-backed loan. If fact, I indicated that was their plan all along; to TRY to get those funds. However, the government will not back the exit financing, that is a completely different animal. What semblance of a plan UAL does have requires exit financing PLUS the government-backed loan, neither of which are in place right now.

But you need to realize that there is a big difference between talking to the government about getting the loan and actually receiving approval. Without a sound plan, the government won''t issue approval, period. They could have not been more clear on that issue with their last rejection.

The longer it takes UAL to emerge, the less likely the government-backed loan will be available to the airline.

Now people are coming on this board and on this thread and saying "UAL plans to exit by the end of the year or Q1 in 2004." That was in fact the premise of a UAL''s press release. The company can say whatever it wants but that doesn''t make it true.

Not one person on this board has given any credible information that since issuing that press release (I believe about two months ago) that UAL is any closer to puting a plan together. In fact, noone has cited any information indicating that UAL is any closer to emeging than it was when it filed.

 

[767jetz]

DCAflyer wrote:
"...the government will not back the exit financing," "What semblance of a plan UAL does have requires exit financing PLUS the government-backed loan, neither of which are in place right now."

767jetz replies:
Where is your proof of this? Have you been speaking to the government? Do you have a secret source that you are not willing to disclose? Or are your assuptions based on the lack of PUBLIC information?


DCAflyer wrote:
"Without a sound plan, the government won't issue approval, period. They could have not been more clear on that issue with their last rejection."

767jetz replies:
Again, where are your facts to support your claim that there is no sound plan? It sounds to me like you are regurgitating Chips unsubstantiated claims. When are you going to realize that UAL's plans are nobody elses business, they are purposely being tight-lipped, and there are MANY things going on behind the scenes that you are not privy to. My sources tell me that UA's plan and revenue assumptions are ULTRA conservative for the very reason you point out - the gov't WAS very clear and UA doesn't want to take any chances on the ATSB loan this time.



DCAflyer wrote:
"The longer it takes UAL to emerge, the less likely the government-backed loan will be available to the airline."

767jetz responds:
You are completely wrong on this point. UA will not rush to emerge because, UNLIKE USAir, they don't want to emerge before most if not all of the problems are fixed. They will take the time neccessary to do it right the first time, so that there will be no more return trips to the BK court. Look at Continental and TWA. IMO when UA emerges the chances of a return trip will be FAR less likely than an return to BK for USAir. UA will come out of the gate strong and hard.



DCAflyer wrote:
"The company can say whatever it wants but that doesn't make it true."

767jetz replies:
You sir, as well as CHIP and all the other "anti-UA" self proclaimed "experts" can also say whatever you want... but that doesn't make it true either, now does it?



DCAflyer wrote:
"Not one person on this board has given any credible information that since issuing that press release (I believe about two months ago) that UAL is any closer to puting a plan together. In fact, noone has cited any information indicating that UAL is any closer to emeging than it was when it filed."

767jetz replies:
Actually there has been plenty of indication that much progrss has been made in UA's BK proceedings. Not one person on this board has given any CREDIBLE information that UAL is NOT closer to emerging.


767jetz concludes:

There is no shortage of hot air and ill will floating around. In the end, that's all it really is... hot air. The big guns at the top, and those actually present behind the closed doors, are the ONLY ones who really know with any certainty or accuracy what is transpiring, and what will transpire. And they are certainly not going to reveal any of it to you, or me, or Chip, or an analyst, or anyone for that matter. Only time will tell. Until then it is all pure speculation.

Good day.

 

[737nCH11]

Chip, Chip, Chip.....

How many times do I have to tell you that I''m not tied to UAL. I have family and friends at UAL and U. If it were not for the fact that so many employees would be devastated, both companies could fold for all I care. The airline industry would certainly be much better off.

I only post because you seem so confident of UAL''s demise. You spout rumors like they were gospel, yet when I came up with a theory you called me a sophist and said I was frustrated. In case you haven''t noticed, your theories are equally as far-fetched as mine.

Trust me when I say that I have inside sources at UAL. Trust me when I say that they will get financing, and will emerge from BK. After that, it''s anyone''s guess. There is still too much capacity in the system, and something has got to give.

I will say that I share your feelings that a Unique Corporate Transaction will occur. However, I don''t think that you are going to be happy when it transpires. Someone on the UAL board posted that U dropping Gatwick flights was just a prelude to what was going to happen when U is initiated into STAR. I think that person hit the nail on the head. As unfair as it seems, you are going to see more of that.
I fully believe that U is content to stay in the northeast and feed it''s STAR partners. You may see growth in the Carribean (sp?), but that is only because no other STAR carriers have a strong presence there. I would be happy for you if USAirways started flights to BA, but I just don''t see it happening. Once again, U can feed traffic to UAL for these flights and avoid the costs of starting service to an area that has been notoriously unprofitable.
I said in another post that all Siegle had to do was Change U''s name back to Allegheney, and you would be right back to where you were in the 1970s. U is becoming a regional carrier, because that is where it can be profitable again. UAL relies heavily on it''s Atlantic and Pacific operations, and so it requires feed from the entire U.S. to support itself. I believe this is why CEO Glen Tilton has stated that UAL has no desire to shrink.

I may be totally wrong, but I believe U is setting itself up to be the new Atlantic Coast Airlines for the Star Alliance.

 

[PITbull]

There's is absolutely no doubt in my mind that UAL will survive....NONE. they will not shrink...tha't only U's plan cause they don't know how to grow and compete, even with all the cost savings AND the luxury of going into BK.

When UAL comes out of BK (when they are good and ready) YOU WATCH THEM SOAR...

 

[737nCH11]

PITbull,

What is really sad about this industry is that it takes bright, talented employees and slowly grinds them down.

I remember PSA and Piedmont. What a couple of great companies. They were small, so there was camradrie among all employee groups. How many of those people remain with USAirways, and what are their feelings now?

I have a very good friend who was hired as a pilot with Ozark in the 70s. That was another great company. Then came TWA and Carl Icahn, and a great screwing of Ozark employees ensued. This same friend is now being thrashed by AMR. It''s sad.

I believe UAL and U need each other. Codesharing makes the most sense. I think a merger would be great for the management and eventual shareholders of both companies, but it would be horrible for the employees. I have yet to see a merger that has pleased all employee groups, or treated all employee groups fairly.

 

[LGA Fleet Service]

----------------
On 7/19/2003 2:53:53 PM PITbull wrote:

There''s is absolutely no doubt in my mind that UAL will survive....NONE. they will not shrink...tha''t only U''s plan cause they don''t know how to grow and compete, even with all the cost savings AND the luxury of going into BK.


When UAL comes out of BK (when they are good and ready) YOU WATCH THEM SOAR...

----------------​

Careful PIT, that kind of thinking will have management PMing you again...

Not to mention have you branded as a Sophist.

 

[PITbull]

----------------
On 7/20/2003 542 AM LGA Fleet Service wrote:

----------------
On 7/19/2003 2:53:53 PM PITbull wrote:

There''s is absolutely no doubt in my mind that UAL will survive....NONE. they will not shrink...tha''t only U''s plan cause they don''t know how to grow and compete, even with all the cost savings AND the luxury of going into BK.


When UAL comes out of BK (when they are good and ready) YOU WATCH THEM SOAR...

----------------​

Careful PIT, that kind of thinking will have management PMing you again...

Not to mention have you branded as a Sophist.

----------------​

LGA,

What''s a Sophist? Is that a bad thing?

 

[USA320Pilot]

737nCH11:
I’m sorry I confused you with a UA employee, but I do not read every post and your user name and writing style could easily have you viewed as a UA employee.
Regardless, there are reports within the past few days that the national news media has been contacting analysts and other sources about some sort of a corporate transaction between US & UA. The news media is trying to find out what is occurring and the obvious issue surrounds UA’s exit financing and if it can be obtained. Do not be surprised if Henry Silverman or David Bonderman surface considering their relationship with Dave Siegel.

It appears with this week's airline earnings reports, Q3 & Q4 negative forecasts, and with UA's increased potential to violate its DIP requirements, there could be some M&A news in the not so distant future.

737, in regard to your comment "I share your feelings that a Unique Corporate Transaction will occur. However, I don't think that you are going to be happy when it transpires", I disagree with your thought. Unless things change from what I understand, this will not happen.
Best regards,
Chip

 

[USA320Pilot]

Lav:

You''re correct about Chris'' title and he''s a friend of mine. I got his title confused with Pat Goldman under the Schofield regime, when I regularly communicated with John Bronson (who heads up Employee Communications) and Pat in John''s absence when I wrote Ambassador meeting columns that were placed in Pacer.

Best regards,

Chip

 

[737nCH11]

...

 

[USA320Pilot]

737nCH11:

737nCH11 said: "Pssst.....You forgot to add "I will blatantly ignore all of these reasonable questions that seem to poke holes in my theories."

Chip asks: 737, you made the comment above and than in a nano second deleted the comment. It was a coincidence that I was on the board and caught your comment before you deleted it. In fact, in some strange way it appears as soon as I log on, your right there behind me. Hummm???? How can this be????

Chip comments: 737, I have not looked at the UA message board since late Wednesday night or actually very early Thursday morning. If my memory serves me correct, I wrote a detailed and long post answering virtually all of your questions -- where you asked a lot of questions. With all due respect, can you tell me how a long post that takes about an hour to type is "blatantly ignore all of these reasonable questions that seem to poke holes in my theories?"

Best regards,

Chip