OP
USA320Pilot
Veteran
- May 18, 2003
- 8,175
- 1,539
Merger Question
- Thread starter USA320Pilot
- Start date
So what are fuel prices going to be in 7 years? Or is it your contention that UAL will have to do 7% this month?USA320Pilot said:
. Going forward, the ATSB must assume that all the airlines will be equally effective at hedging. Why would the cost of fuel TODAY matter? You REALLY need to get that accounting text out.... As to going another direction, do you think all your pax would go with you? Having tasted Econ plus and headsets that work, who knows? I wonder what that would do to YOUR companies meeting the covenants. Of course all they have to do is ask and you'll give them whatever they want right?USA320,
Why would you make a statement like this "that you would like to see US end the code share?" With all do respect you are a pilot and have no insight into the numbers.. Please focus on doing what you do best. Flying the plane from point A to point B. I have read your post for many months and kept my mouth shut and listened to a lot of far fetched stuff. So far in the last three weeks you have said that US would possible buy UA or NW would purchase US and now all this Virgin and F9 stuff!!! I would agree that someday something will probably happen between UA and US, but give us a break on all this other stuff. Please....
Why would you make a statement like this "that you would like to see US end the code share?" With all do respect you are a pilot and have no insight into the numbers.. Please focus on doing what you do best. Flying the plane from point A to point B. I have read your post for many months and kept my mouth shut and listened to a lot of far fetched stuff. So far in the last three weeks you have said that US would possible buy UA or NW would purchase US and now all this Virgin and F9 stuff!!! I would agree that someday something will probably happen between UA and US, but give us a break on all this other stuff. Please....
OP
USA320Pilot
Veteran
- May 18, 2003
- 8,175
- 1,539
- Thread Starter
- Thread starter
- #35
Dbcwaar:
Dbcwaar said: "So far in the last three weeks you have said that US would possible buy UA or NW would purchase US and now all this Virgin and F9 stuff."
USA320Pilot asks: Where did I say that. Could you post the URL?
Regards,
USA320Pilot
Dbcwaar said: "So far in the last three weeks you have said that US would possible buy UA or NW would purchase US and now all this Virgin and F9 stuff."
USA320Pilot asks: Where did I say that. Could you post the URL?
Regards,
USA320Pilot
USA320Pilot, you really don't have a very good handle on business, it would seem.
The US/F9 comment from Branson is not even close to being a signal of considering the merger. Rather, it's an observation that there are times when the market cap is lower than the assets.
Did you ever stop to ask why the market cap is lower than the assets? That happens when the liabilities get to be large. The investing community believes that UAIR is worth less than UAIR's airplanes. Do you get that? The investing community believes that the airplanes would be put to better use at another airline. No, scratch that...the investing community believes that the airplanes would be put to better use mothballed in Arizona than flying for US Airways.
That being the case, why on earth would Branson want to buy the whole kit and caboodle? He doesn't. He'd be interested in the gates and slots, and maybe the 319/320/321s. But he sure doesn't want to buy the company.
Incidentally, while we're on the idle-chatter channel of airline mergers, I still think the best fit out there today would be B6/F9. F9's going with A320s with the same video system that B6 uses (and owns). Frontier has a good hub location in the west, one that would complement LGB and JFK nicely. But that's just idle chatter. I doubt it would happen until they start doing real battle with WN.
The US/F9 comment from Branson is not even close to being a signal of considering the merger. Rather, it's an observation that there are times when the market cap is lower than the assets.
Did you ever stop to ask why the market cap is lower than the assets? That happens when the liabilities get to be large. The investing community believes that UAIR is worth less than UAIR's airplanes. Do you get that? The investing community believes that the airplanes would be put to better use at another airline. No, scratch that...the investing community believes that the airplanes would be put to better use mothballed in Arizona than flying for US Airways.
That being the case, why on earth would Branson want to buy the whole kit and caboodle? He doesn't. He'd be interested in the gates and slots, and maybe the 319/320/321s. But he sure doesn't want to buy the company.
Incidentally, while we're on the idle-chatter channel of airline mergers, I still think the best fit out there today would be B6/F9. F9's going with A320s with the same video system that B6 uses (and owns). Frontier has a good hub location in the west, one that would complement LGB and JFK nicely. But that's just idle chatter. I doubt it would happen until they start doing real battle with WN.
OP
USA320Pilot
Veteran
- May 18, 2003
- 8,175
- 1,539
- Thread Starter
- Thread starter
- #37
Busdrvr:
Busdrvr said: "Going forward, the ATSB must assume that all the airlines will be equally effective at hedging."
USA320Pilot comments: Can you show me where the OMB loan guarantee guidelines require that the ATSB must assume that all the airlines will be equally effective at hedging? Furthermore, United is not permitted to hedge while its in bankruptcy.
If anything, the ATSB may have to assume the worst case scenario of high fuel prices, which would require United to articulate further revenue improvements or cost cuts to meet the "silly 7% clause."
Regards,
USA320Pilot
Busdrvr said: "Going forward, the ATSB must assume that all the airlines will be equally effective at hedging."
USA320Pilot comments: Can you show me where the OMB loan guarantee guidelines require that the ATSB must assume that all the airlines will be equally effective at hedging? Furthermore, United is not permitted to hedge while its in bankruptcy.
If anything, the ATSB may have to assume the worst case scenario of high fuel prices, which would require United to articulate further revenue improvements or cost cuts to meet the "silly 7% clause."
Regards,
USA320Pilot
"F9's going with A320s with the same video system that B6 uses (and owns). Frontier has a good hub location in the west, one that would complement LGB and JFK nicely."
F9 has 318's and 319's (no 320's) and they are CFM powered. Blu is all 320's powered by IAE's. Seniority integration would be a @!#.
A320,
"Can you show me where the OMB loan guarantee guidelines require that the ATSB must assume that all the airlines will be equally effective at hedging?"
Can you show me where it doesn't? Hedging is an investment. It's a BET. If anything, They would give MORE credit to UAL considering the CEO is the former CEO of a fricken Oil Company.
"Furthermore, United is not permitted to hedge while its in bankruptcy."
And that matters how 6 years from now? they fact they haven't forced a U default bodes well for UAL.
F9 has 318's and 319's (no 320's) and they are CFM powered. Blu is all 320's powered by IAE's. Seniority integration would be a @!#.
A320,
"Can you show me where the OMB loan guarantee guidelines require that the ATSB must assume that all the airlines will be equally effective at hedging?"
Can you show me where it doesn't? Hedging is an investment. It's a BET. If anything, They would give MORE credit to UAL considering the CEO is the former CEO of a fricken Oil Company.
"Furthermore, United is not permitted to hedge while its in bankruptcy."
And that matters how 6 years from now?
they fact they haven't forced a U default bodes well for UAL.
OP
USA320Pilot
Veteran
- May 18, 2003
- 8,175
- 1,539
- Thread Starter
- Thread starter
- #39
To put this Virgin USA, US Airways, and Frontier corporate combination thought in perspective here are some facts:
-- Senior officers regularly talk with their counterparts at different airlines about consolidation and modeling.
-- Richard Branson recently told the BBC a financier could buy Frontier and US Airways and then merge the two companies for less than the cost of the aircraft alone. In other words, presuming US Airways completes its transition to a hybrid LCC/network carrier, the merged company could be in place and obtained virtually for nothing assuming you can deal with the debt and ask for reductions from the debtors.
-- According to a recent London's Guardian report, "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.
-- 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."
USA320Pilot comments: If US Airways decided on this strategy, it could be forced by the company’s inability to get labor participation in the “Going Forward Plan.†Obviously, the implications could be very negative for employees with major flying reductions and furloughs. Moreover, this proposed combination would require US Airways to make serious code share antitrust concessions in Denver or drop United as its business partner.
With all this said, I still believe the current plan is to stabilize the company with the Going Forward Plan and then when natural consolidation forces kick in, just like in the railroad, automobile, and steel industries, US Airways will be involved in some sort of corporate transaction with the likely suitor United Airlines.
Regards,
USA320Pilot
P.S. From a personal perspective I do not want to merge with United and I would like US Airways to find an alternate business partner option than the Chicago-based carrier. This would enable US Airways to drop United as its code share partner.
-- Senior officers regularly talk with their counterparts at different airlines about consolidation and modeling.
-- Richard Branson recently told the BBC a financier could buy Frontier and US Airways and then merge the two companies for less than the cost of the aircraft alone. In other words, presuming US Airways completes its transition to a hybrid LCC/network carrier, the merged company could be in place and obtained virtually for nothing assuming you can deal with the debt and ask for reductions from the debtors.
-- According to a recent London's Guardian report, "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.
-- 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."
USA320Pilot comments: If US Airways decided on this strategy, it could be forced by the company’s inability to get labor participation in the “Going Forward Plan.†Obviously, the implications could be very negative for employees with major flying reductions and furloughs. Moreover, this proposed combination would require US Airways to make serious code share antitrust concessions in Denver or drop United as its business partner.
With all this said, I still believe the current plan is to stabilize the company with the Going Forward Plan and then when natural consolidation forces kick in, just like in the railroad, automobile, and steel industries, US Airways will be involved in some sort of corporate transaction with the likely suitor United Airlines.
Regards,
USA320Pilot
P.S. From a personal perspective I do not want to merge with United and I would like US Airways to find an alternate business partner option than the Chicago-based carrier. This would enable US Airways to drop United as its code share partner.
OP
USA320Pilot
Veteran
- May 18, 2003
- 8,175
- 1,539
- Thread Starter
- Thread starter
- #40
Busdrvr:
Your argument has no basis and is not logical.
If I were you, I would be more concerned about United's $5 million per day operating loss, a net loss closer to $8 million per day during the past two months, and the fuel crisis. It's clear that these numbers will not permit the company to qualify for that "silly 7% clause" and United will not obtain the loan guarantee until something changes, e.g. more cost cuts, asset sales, or dramatic revenue improvements.
Thus, when would now be a good time for US Airways to drop United as its code share partner and strike a deal with another airline?
Regards,
USA320Pilot
Your argument has no basis and is not logical.
If I were you, I would be more concerned about United's $5 million per day operating loss, a net loss closer to $8 million per day during the past two months, and the fuel crisis. It's clear that these numbers will not permit the company to qualify for that "silly 7% clause" and United will not obtain the loan guarantee until something changes, e.g. more cost cuts, asset sales, or dramatic revenue improvements.
Thus, when would now be a good time for US Airways to drop United as its code share partner and strike a deal with another airline?
Regards,
USA320Pilot
hmm, so USA320, how many profitable months did U have while in BK? But yet they got the loan? is it only in the Crystal fairy world that the ATSB can deliniate between in BK performance and a long term business plan? I must admit, this a laugh a minute. It ain't the UAL guys speculating about who the could possibly be the Knight in shining armor comming to buy us out and save us.
BTW, as to Branson, Labor cost MORE THAN DOUBLE equipment. It's cheaper to buy new equipment and hire new guys than to pay 15 year F/O's.
BTW, as to Branson, Labor cost MORE THAN DOUBLE equipment. It's cheaper to buy new equipment and hire new guys than to pay 15 year F/O's.
You're right, but frankly that's all the MORE reason as to why the ATSB is hesitant to give United's future its seal of approval. Of course, there's also the fact that United, while having the best fleet, best route network, large operations in LHR/NRT, etc., is still bleeding cash like a stuck pig and only proposing temporary solutions to delay the inevitable instead of actually trying to fix itself.Busdrvr said:
USA320Pilot, you just don't get it, do you? Busdrvr's absolutely right. Bransons comment doesn't mean that it's a good idea to merge the two airlines; it means the two airlines are worth less than the equipment. Branson did not get where he is today by doing stupid things like merging US Airways with Frontier.
The smart move would be for Branson to buy the US Airways gates, slots, and some aircraft for equity instead of cash. US Airways could then shut down the rest of the money-losing operation and act as a holding company for Virgin USA in order to keep them legal.
It's not a pretty outcome for current US Airways employees, but it's a much smarter business decision than buying trying to build a complicated business transaction where US Airways and Frontier merge and get 49% bought by Branson.
The smart move would be for Branson to buy the US Airways gates, slots, and some aircraft for equity instead of cash. US Airways could then shut down the rest of the money-losing operation and act as a holding company for Virgin USA in order to keep them legal.
It's not a pretty outcome for current US Airways employees, but it's a much smarter business decision than buying trying to build a complicated business transaction where US Airways and Frontier merge and get 49% bought by Branson.
