Merger Question

[Mike W]

What exactly is the "Going Forward Plan" that USA320Pilot keeps referring to.

The silence is deafening.

 

[networking]

Furloughedagain:

A deal between Virgin USA, US Airways, and Frontier would be complex, but Neil Cohen is very bright and he could figure out how to finance such an airline, although this proposal is likely not high on US Airways' radar screen.

According to London's Guardian, "for the past year, Richard Branson has been quietly talking to American venture capital providers who will provide the other 51% of the investment. The launch budget is pencilled in at $200 million," the chronicle reported.

According to Dow Jones News Services on March 23, "US Airways could become a major shareholder in the new low cost start-up Virgin USA", said Virgin Group Chairman Richard Branson. Apparently, US Airways would be the principal LCC component and Virgin USA would have a few more frills even than JetBlue, but like the other discounters would fly city to city rather than use a regional hub."

Therefore, could market forces broght to bare on this idea and be part of fallback plan and more reason the company will exit Pittsburgh?

US Airways spokesman David Castelveter told Dow Jones on March 23, "We are not in any discussions with Virgin USA or any other Virgin representatives," however, from this observer's perch, if "Going Forward Plan" negotiations fizzle, we could see the Pittsburgh immediately downsized, the B737s sold, thousands of furloughs, and a corporate combination between the remnants of US Airways, Frontier, and Virgin USA to create a strong nationwide LCC.

Regards,

USA320Pilot

You have to wonder if this is the real intent since the "Going Forward Plan" is a guessing game to all parties involved.

 

[Art at ISP]

The truth is that nobody knows what the Going Forward Plan is--not even Siegel!!!!

They're making it up as they go along.

Why haven't the operational issues and the fare issues been resolved? Because they don't want to...

I am sorry but this does not look good.

My best to you all.......

 

[Cosmo]

In regard to UCT airport municipal bond payments, United received a reprieve on some debt payments, but the company must make $261 million payment to Denver or reject the gates, facilities, and maintenance operation. Furthermore, Judge Wedoff deferred ruling on the Chicago suit where the company has defaulted on about $600 million of special facility bonds. This could be a smoking gun and the immediate question is why did Wedoff not rule on this part of the litigation but handled the suit filed by Los Angeles, San Francisco, Denver, and the Port Authority for NY and NJ?

If Wedoff rules in favor of Chicago, United could be forced to pay $861 million to keep its Denver and Chicago operations, appeal the decision, or reject the leases and pull out or sell part of the UCT airport facilities/gates, etc.

USA320Pilot:

You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about with regard to these bonds. The amounts you quoted are the outstanding balance of the bonds, not the payment required to bring United current. I don't know what the "cure amount" is for the defaulted payments, but I would be surprised if it is as much as 5% of the outstanding balance. I'm sure United would rather not make that payment, but it would be no financial disaster if they did. So this is just another example of you playing "fast and loose" with United's financial information, where you never met a number that you didn't try to distort to United's detriment.

And continuing to refer to these airports as the "UCT airports" is the height of hubris on your part.

 

[ktflyhome]

Art: As I have read your posts through out all of this....You defintately make sense. Where are we going......?????? No one....No one really knows. Who is USAirways, What is USAirways....no one really knows. We are becoming and Embarassement to the Industry/ We are a laughing stock to all of the LCC's and even the Legacy Carriers. We have become a hideous, pathietic airline that is still trying departely to get passengers to fly on us....and the real reason is WHY!!!?????? We abolutely have nothing whatsoever to offer the flying public anymore. We are a lost entity.

 

[USA320Pilot]

I didn't say that a Virgin USA, US Airways, Frontier agreement was close to fruition nor do I believe it will occur. There is continued reason to believe from inside of CCY that US Airways' probable M&A partner will be United Airlines, but if another deal that provides greater shareholder value appears, than something could happen in a different direction.

Regards,

USA320Pilot

 

[Busdrvr]

Cosmo, you let him off light. Fast and loose indeed....

"Furthermore, the company must repay up to $1.5 billion of DIP financing before it can emerge, although its uncertain how much money the company has used from the bankruptcy credit facility."

For someone who pretends to be a very savy First Officer, you couldn't even bother to read the annual report?! As of Dec 31, 2003, UAL owed the DIP's 663 million. As of today, that number "should" be around 550 million or ONE THIRD of your overblown number. As to the 174 EETC, I think you'd better check your facts....

 

[USA320Pilot]

Busdrvr:

With all due respect, maybe you should check your facts, but United had a operating loss of about $5 million per day during January and February and continues to financially hemorrhage. Moreover, the net loss was even greater, therefore, how will these numbers effect the DIP credit facility?

Separately, if my memory serves me correctly, today I flew from New York to the West Coast as a line holding Captain.

Are you purposely misinforming again and why do you frequent the US Airways board? Moreover, I was asked a question by 767jetz and answered his comments. Don't "shoot the messenger" because you do not like the news.

Regards,

USA320Pilot

 

[Busdrvr]

"At the end of two years company’s will be required to make balloon payments, thus the question is the pensions may be saved, but it could cost the company loan guarantee approval. Why? The airline must account for the balloon payments in their update application and prove it can meet a 7% profit rating in 7 years."

In case you missed it the first 58 times you were told, the pension "balloon payments" will NOT be income statement items. They have ALREADY been accounted for. They will be a CASH FLOW item. They will have no bearing on the silly 7% clause. Your credibility would be better served if you at least claimed it would cause liquidity issues (not as bad as NWA's DAL's and AMR's though...)

 

[Busdrvr]

"With all due respect, maybe you should check your facts, but United had a operating loss of about $5 million per day during January and February and continues to financially hemorrhage. Moreover, the net loss was even greater, therefore, how will these numbers effect the DIP credit facility?"

No, with all due respect, you need to take a freshman level accounting class. Operating loss DOES NOT equal cash flow. are you intentionally misleading this board "captain"? (awaiting training?)

"continues to financially hemorrhage."

and your source is what? 80% LF and a VERY good March and you contend they are "hemorraging" GMAFB. In another post, you point out U's revised downward earning. How come the first quarter numbers make up over half of the projected yearly loss? Maybe Jan and Feb are traditionally bad? If U going to continue to "hemorrhage"?

 

[USA320Pilot]

Busdrvr:

Busdrvr said: "They will have no bearing on the silly 7% clause."

USA320Pilot comments: Busdrvr, United could not prove to Fitch Rating that it could meet that "silly 7% clause" in its initial loan guarantee application, which is why the ATSB rejected the company's application. Moreover, there is continued reason to believe the company will not meet that "silly 7% clause" again with the company losing millions and millions of dollars every day after huge cost cuts.

Maybe that 7% clause may not be so silly in the future, especially if it requires more employee concessions and/or downsizing to reach the target.

Respectfully,

USA320Pilot

 

[dbcwaar]

You are kidding your self if you think US and F9 would ever merge!!! The Gov would have a big problem with the Market concentration in DEN if this was proposed. In essence you would have US and UA (both code share partners) controlling almost all of the MS in DEN. The only way this could possible work would be if F9 purchased US and kept the F9 name and ended the code share or if US bought F9 and ended the code share. Not going to happen!!!! These posts are getting better and better...

 

[Busdrvr]

USA320,
I see you didn't have the courtesy to retract your inflamitory and false statements, and I'm sure you'll once again use your faulty statements, despite knowing better. It's a shame that you don't care anymore about your credibility (after all, that's all you have left now that the dignity is gone...)


DBC, you miss the point. In the world of little fairies and a Crystal Palace, there would be a grand merger with FRNT. And the brave U would slay the evil UAL and bring peace and prosperity to the world... Of course, U would get DOH (despite the Junior Pilot at U being like 7 YEARS senior to the most SENIOR FRNT pilot) because the prince deserves his birth right (now you peasant F/A's, CSR'S and AMT's get back to work!!!)

 

[USA320Pilot]

Dbcwaar:

There would not be an antitrust problem if US Airways rejects its code share agreement with United (which I would like to see) and then became a combined LCC with Virgin USA and Frontier.

Again, I said I do not believe this will occur, but it could as an alternate plan.

Regards,

USA320Pilot

 

[USA320Pilot]

Busdrvr,

I see no reason to apologize because my comments are accurate and not inflammatory. Moreover, I will not go tit-for-tat with you and as I said, I would like to see US Airways reject its alliance with United and move in another direction. By the way, if that did occur how would that effect United’s loan guarantee application and that “silly 7% clauseâ€￾?

Respectfully,

USA320Pilot