Political Posturing Or Sad Reality?

[MarkMyWords]

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/03275/227648.stm


Key paragraph of concern regarding MAA:

A key element in the airline's plan to make a profit has been its plans to deploy hundreds of regional jets on its short-haul routes. But the carrier warned, "We may not be able to meet our commitments to purchase flight equipment, which could result in penalties and impair our ability to execute our regional jet business plan."

 

[PITbull]

Well, there it is...management's trump card shown once again.

I perceive this as yet another threat. "Pittsburgh needs to do this, or we won't be able to do that, blah, blah, blah, blah...."we won't be able to buy our RJs and we will have to look else where"....and we have no moeny, and we are broke, and we can't make a profit"....

In light of all these consessions (2) worth billions to this airline in cost savings, the ATSB guarantee, the alliances, the investor monies, termination of pensions, two government bailouts, stealing of contract language from the employees for more cost savings, and this "sorry-of-an-excuse" management team still cries "doom and gloom" and warns of no profit and no money. IMO, there are three reasons for this threat I am able to surmise:

1. This mangement has cut so severely "quality customer care" that we have lost our loyal customer base and no one wants to fly this airline if they have a choice. (Has nothing to do with any terreriorst threat; another sorry-### excuse)

2. Another threat and hammer on the IAM for an excuse to "out source" their work.
(Setting everyone up to make "their case".)

3. Hammer for Pittsburgh negotiations to get all their cost savings.

Solution: The USA BOD needs to wake up and find new management, bottom line. One that everyone can put their trust in.

Other airlines aren't nearly as advanced in the restructuring process as U, and are not in "dire straights" as U claims to be in, why?

Somethings either up, or smells like "fish" to me...

PS: Mark, ask me if I believe MAA will come to life? I'll just answer: ABSOLUTELY! and at the expense of everyone else!

 

[delldude]

Right on Pitbull.....seems like we've changed all the tires and they're still flat.
i'd swear schofield/wolfe/gangwal are still here,is it just me?
well what the heck ,if we can't get MDA going,jeez...the airbuses must be out of the question,right?

 

[E-TRONS]

Guys, don't kid yourselves. The BOD is ***owned*** by Dave Bronner (8 of the 15 seats). The management is doing exactly as they are being directed to by this so called BOD.

What makes me nuts is that the last report from our BOD IAM-rep has painted the BOD as totally in tune with what is going on and has great insight into turning this company around.........."everyone is an equal participant on the board."

Sombody please shoot me.

E-TRONS OUT.

 

[USFlyer]

One thing to remember is the company is required to report any known risks in the statement it filed. Clearly, we've all known this to be a large risk in US's business plan ... namely, whether the needed financing exists to execute the business plan. US needs to at least have positive cash flow SOON or else a second visit to bankruptcy court will surely happen. And this second visit would most likely be the end.

And E-TRONS is dead on ... this management is doing everything Bronner says to do. He controls the BOD and thus controls the direction of the company.

 

[allegheny1]

To usflyer

you are absolutely correct. The bod is calling the tune and Mr. Seigel and company
are dancing their jig. I also agree re the cash flow positive statement and the
only alternative remaining if that does not occur,

To pitbull

I also agree with 2 of you assessments.
1. Something smells fishy....dont know what it is but i bet it s big.

2. A change of several exec. v.p.s ....maybe even ceo...is in order if we
are ever to stop going from crisis to crisis,get any labor peace,and once
again be able to focus solely on our customers.

It appears, at times , that the only focus on the customer...who pays our salary...
is coming from the rank and file front line employees while the senior level
management is single mindedly set upon destroying labor relations.

regards

 

[Beckles]

It's an SEC registration statement ... they have to address every potential risk in such a statement ... just like any company that files a registration statement there are pages and pages of such risks, in this case about twelve of them.

US Airways S-3 Registration Statement - Risk Factors

 

[Beckles]

It's an SEC registration statement ... they have to address every potential risk in such a statement ... just like any company that files a registration statement there are pages and pages of such risks, in this case about twelve of them.

US Airways S-3 Registration Statement - Risk Factors

Just as a point of comparison, JetBlue's SEC registration statement had 13 pages of Risk Factors.

JetBlue's S-1 Registration Statement - Risk Factors

 

[N628AU]

Check into any carrier trying to obtain aircraft, even ones that are cash flow positive (Mesa is a good example), and the biggest hurdle is financing aircraft right now. With the lumps the lessors have taken in Chapter 11 filings by U and UA, along with smaller carriers, and those that have gotten lease concessions through the threat of filing, coupled with the glut of parked aircraft, who except the manufacturers is willing to put up financing in a still uncertain marketplace? With regional jets, we are not talking about manufacturers with pockets like Boeing or Airbus, which makes the financing that much more difficult to come by.

Separately, if this were not listed as a risk, and something fell through in the financing, the company BOD would be in breach of it's fiduciary duty to the shareholders.

 

[USA320Pilot]

Could the timing of the company’s filing a shelf registration statement could be more of Dave Siegel and Jerry Glass’ third-party communication campaign to create fear, uncertainty, and doubt (FUD) , to extract greater concessions from the State of Pennsylvania, AGAA, and IAM?

I recognize that the company must notify investors of any potential risk, but I find the timing suspect. Let’s not forget the company has about $2 billion cash-on-hand, the airline has begun an expensive campaign to repaint the entire fleet, the company received very favorable financing for its recent RJ order (where airline analyst Ray Neidl said this was “impressiveâ€￾, and RSA, BOA, GECAS, Aviation Acquisition, L.L.C., OCM Principal Opportunities Fund II and Goldman Sachs & Co., and the ATSB have all invested in US Airways. These respected financial institutions all bought stock or secured loans indicating their support of US Airways, basically putting their money where their mouth is in support of the airline.

In comparison, United Airlines has been unable to get a single financial institution to provide exit financing and according to ALPA president Duane Woerth the ATSB has raised its requirements for United to receive a loan guarantee three times. In my opinion, Siegel is once again using FUD to retract concessions from others, which has worked every time during the past 18 months.

Respectfully,

Chip

 

[PITbull]

Again I say, this management has experienced not 1 consequence to their egregious actions of threats, stealing contract language, misrepresentation, and disingeniousness.

They will continue to knive and scheme until someone calls their bluff and ride it.

 

[RowUnderDCA]

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/tribune-re...s/s_157853.html

Does this sound like a 'blink' to you? Of course, you have to listen very closely to hear a blink.

Roddey: All airlines are equal

By Jim Ritchie
TRIBUNE-REVIEW
Thursday, October 2, 2003

.....

"I will guarantee Delta Air Lines and every other airline -- either flying there today or considering it -- any cost relief we give to US Airways will be given to every airline," Roddey said. "Whether it's facility improvements or lowering costs, everyone will be treated equally."

.....

MODERATOR'S NOTE:

AS NOTED IN ANOTHER THREAD, BE SURE TO INCLUDE LITTLE TO NO ACTUAL TEXT FROM ARTICLES LINKED FROM NEWSPAPERS....WE'RE BEING VERY CAUTIOUS ABOUT POSTING MATERIAL FROM CERTAIN MEDIA OUTLET. THANKS.

 

[RowUnderDCA]

Of course, Delta's Ms Connell is correct, generally. But it cuts both ways.

 

[delldude]

Guys, don't kid yourselves. The BOD is ***owned*** by Dave Bronner (8 of the 15 seats). The management is doing exactly as they are being directed to by this so called BOD.

What makes me nuts is that the last report from our BOD IAM-rep has painted the BOD as totally in tune with what is going on and has great insight into turning this company around.........."everyone is an equal participant on the board."

Sombody please shoot me.

E-TRONS OUT.

HEY TRON:did you notice in our guy on the BOD'S report on 141m web...mysteriously is absent of any mention of the airbus fiasco?

 

[ClueByFour]

I recognize that the company must notify investors of any potential risk, but I find the timing suspect. Let’s not forget the company has about $2 billion cash-on-hand, the airline has begun an expensive campaign to repaint the entire fleet, the company received very favorable financing for its recent RJ order (where airline analyst Ray Neidl said this was “impressiveâ€￾, and RSA, BOA, GECAS, Aviation Acquisition, L.L.C., OCM Principal Opportunities Fund II and Goldman Sachs & Co., and the ATSB have all invested in US Airways. These respected financial institutions all bought stock or secured loans indicating their support of US Airways, basically putting their money where their mouth is in support of the airline.

In comparison, United Airlines has been unable to get a single financial institution to provide exit financing and according to ALPA president Duane Woerth the ATSB has raised its requirements for United to receive a loan guarantee three times. In my opinion, Siegel is once again using FUD to retract concessions from others, which has worked every time during the past 18 months.

Let's be realistic:

BOA, RSA, and GECAS were all owed rather large sums of money by U, and got their "shares" for a relative pittance. They lose less money by slaughtering contracts and at least trying to turn the ship around, rather than liquidating. To suggest they have any real "confidence" in the plan is somewhat misleading--it's trying to minimize loss. Let's not try to blur that difference--nobody without an existing stake put any meaningful amount of money into U--indeed, they are trying to minimize their loss. Hardly putting one's money where one's mouth is--more like letting the rabid dog eats the steak with the center of gold in the hopes of extracting it from the other end rather than shooting the thing and removing half a steak.

The exceptions to this are Aviation Acquisition and OCM PPO II, which are both extremely high risk ventures. I think you are trying to suggest that U is in a better investment that UA (again) and I think your logic is flawed.

If Duane Woerth were an airline executive, he would be running an airline. He is not and is not, so his opinion on UA's financial position is bunk.

The UA FUD is getting old. Can we at least limit it to the UA forum?