Possible UA/US Merger Thread III

[767jetz]

767jetz,

Why did you write "pot, kettle, black?"

Regards,

USA320Pilot

P.S. I believe you will hear some very interesitng news this week!

Ummmm... I didn't. That would be nycbusdriver. I was just agreeing.

But I'm sure his comment has something to do with the fact that "you seem to enjoy negative UA news. And, you're very defensive when an analyst or news media person takes a swipe at US always trying to convince readers why US is so good and why UA is so bad."

 

[Travelpro72]

YAAAAAAAAAWN! ! ! ! Anyone have any merger news to share? Could we stop please with the back and fourth. It's getting ridiculous.

 

[TheLarkAscending]

767jetz,
Why did you write "pot, kettle, black?"
P.S. I believe you will hear some very interesitng[sic] news this week!

:wacko: Perhaps a brief review of the original post will shed the appropriate light on which poster actually wrote the aforementioned? Will everyone be able to hear/read that alleged news or is that strictly slated for Jetz' consumption? Will the alleged very interesting news have anything whatsoever to do with UAUA-LCC merger speculation? Someone has been getting chummy with their old Magic Eight Ball again. :wacko:

Leopard - spots.

 

[Be Careful What You Wish For.]

This striptease of an announcement from USA320, coming next week is really pathetic.

Considering the source it would be nice if he actually stated WHAT this announcement would be!

Could it be the moon turns red? Could it be clocks run backwards?

Whatever it is, he does have a 50/50 chance of being right- or wrong.

 

[flydude]

Ummmm... I didn't. That would be nycbusdriver. I was just agreeing.

But I'm sure his comment has something to do with the fact that "you seem to enjoy negative UA news. And, you're very defensive when an analyst or news media person takes a swipe at US always trying to convince readers why US is so good and why UA is so bad."

"You seem to enjoy negative US news. And, you're very defensive when an analyst or news media person takes a swipe at UA always trying to convince readers why UA is so good and why US is so bad." Look, your own statement works for you as well. Take a deep breath, relax, and enjoy your holiday.

 

[nycbusdriver]

Leopard - spots.

Hahahaha! I love it!

I wonder when he will resurrect the UCT?

(For those who have joined since July, 2001, UCT is USA320Pilot-speak for "Unique Corporate Transaction," and it historically refers to the previous UA/US merger attempt. Back in 2001, the UCT was "about to happen" every week for about a year and a half.)

 

[767jetz]

"You seem to enjoy negative US news. And, you're very defensive when an analyst or news media person takes a swipe at UA always trying to convince readers why UA is so good and why US is so bad." Look, your own statement works for you as well. Take a deep breath, relax, and enjoy your holiday.

Isn't that what I said? Did you miss the original post by USA320pilot? I believe that was the point I was trying to make to him.

767jetz,

USA320Pilot said: "Both US Airways and United are in deep trouble."

767jetz responded: "Perhaps. But US Airways is considered to be deeper due to their lack of tangible assets to borrow against and raise capital. As everyone knows, solvency is all about liquidity. If and when airlines start to falter, the first to go will probably buoy the rest."

USA320Pilot comments: 767jetz, I do not understand why you as a UA employee frequent the US message board so often and bash the Tempe-based airline. You seem to enjoy negative US news. And, you're very defensive when an analyst or news media person takes a swipe at UA always trying to convince readers why UA is so good and why US is so bad.

Regards,

USA320Pilot

You should really try to follow the whole thread.

 

[flydude]

Isn't that what I said? Did you miss the original post by USA320pilot? I believe that was the point I was trying to make to him.



You should really try to follow the whole thread.

The point I was trying to get across was that you two seem pretty much alike. I really don't understand your obsession with USAirways and the same can be said about USA320pilot's obsession with United. It comes across a bit disturbing and neurotic. Again, this is just my observation and I have read the entire thread. You and your buddy USA320pilot have more in common then you might think. IMHO

 

[USA320Pilot]

I normally do not read an entire topic any more and I now primarily post links to news media information.

However, in the past I have written about previous corporate transactions between US and UA. I get a chuckle watching 767jetz, a self proclaimed UAL pilot, post inaccurate information and then he tries to discredit others when they post something 767jetz does not like.

For example, I first broke the news on why the 2000 UA-US merger attempt failed. Then I broke the information that David Bronner was interested in buying UA assets for US (UCT). The third point on broke on this topic Dave Siegel had entered into negotiations to buy all of United, which I called the ICT and the two companies called "Project Minnow".

1. As far as the UCT on February 7, 2001 the Charlotte Observer reported "We don't run from fights," said David Bronner, chief executive officer of Retirement Systems of Alabama, which is US Airways' principal partner in bankruptcy court and principal owner if it emerges. Bronner speculated that United has a 50-50 chance of surviving a war. He said that if United were to sell assets, he would consider backing the purchase of some "if it would be beneficial to US Airways."

As far as the ICT or "Project Minnow", the PIT Post-Gazette wrote the following articles:

See Story #1

See Story #2

See Story #3

See Story #4

See Story #5

As far as the real reason the 2000 US-UA merger died started on July 12, 2000 UAL Corp. and US Airways jointly submitted their 21-day Hart-Scott-Rodino Act notice to the Justice Department. This notice advised the government of the airline’s intent to complete the proposed transaction and required the regulators to render an antitrust opinion by August 1. Regulators told sources that UAL submitted the final requested documentation to the Antitrust Division on July 13 and the parties genuinely tried to complete the deal.

On July 23 all interested parties met in Washington at the Department of Justice and the airlines aggressively lobbied the federal government to not oppose the transaction. The parties in attendance included airline senior management (from UAL, US Airways, AMR, and DC Air), the company’s antitrust attorneys, States Attorneys Generals from Pennsylvania, New York, and Maryland, Senator Arlen Specter (R-PA), and the Justice Antitrust Division staff lead by Deputy Attorney General for Antitrust Hewitt Pate.

Reports indicate both UAL and US Airways aggressively sought to complete the deal, but no one knows for sure if UAL’s efforts were designed to complete the transaction or to avoid a potential breach-of-contract lawsuit. Nonetheless, Pate was said to be a “problem solver†versus “problem maker†and he tried to broker a deal that the federal government believed was within established M&A guidelines and case law. The airlines had no choice but to submit the original UAL-US Airways MOU, amended by the UAL-AMR Corp. January 9 agreement, to complete the transaction by the August 1 termination date, because any material change would require up to another four month regulatory review per M&A law.

During the July 23 meeting at the Justice Department reports indicate Pate offered a solution for the deal to proceed with a government “no action†letter. The proposed changes included eliminating DC Air, selling Washington National gates/222 slots to an established carrier(s), if this carrier was AMR eliminate the Shuttle Joint Venture/limits on American Airlines growth to permit AMR to create its own independent Shuttle, and sell approximately 15 PHL gates to provide effective competition for both the post-merger route monopoly/duoply issue.

Reports indicate UAL was agreeable to the governments requirements provided there would by no labor interference. Why? Simply put UAL found itself in a “catch 22â€. The Chicago- based airline was projected to lose over $1 billion during the year, it was experiencing a serious increase in costs, like other airlines has witnessed a stunning year-over-year revenue loss of approximately 10%, and had limited access to the capital markets. With open labor contracts for the mechanics and ramp workers, coupled with the AFA mid-term wage increase demands/scope clause issue, UAL could ill afford to complete the transaction and pay $4.3 billion for US Airways (minus the capital obtained from the post-merger divestitures) plus assume $8.1 billion in debt, if the airline was going to face continued labor unrest.

Reports indicated UAL chairman Jim Goodwin approached the unions about UAL’s predicament and the IAM was generally agreeable, but the AFA was not. The AFA said they would support the transaction and waive their scope agreements provided the company would provide the Flight Attendants with a pilot type wage increase of 20%. The company rejected the AFA demand and when the union filed its lawsuit in U.S. District Court on July 26, UAL could not accept the governments brokered plan to complete the merger transaction(s) and the deal(s) collapsed.

Faced with no alternative and the airlines request to have the regulators announce their decision by July 27, the government was forced to issue its press release announcing it would seek injunctive relief to block the merger if the airlines attempted to complete both the UAL-US Airways and UAL-AMR transactions. In response, the airlines elected to jointly terminate the MOU and US Airways agreed to accept the $50 million termination fee. These two steps eliminated a US Airways potential breach-of-contract lawsuit and there was widespread speculation US Airways will not seek damages because the airline did not want to jeopardize any future relationship with United Airlines. Nonetheless, immediately after announcing the deals joint termination UAL surprisingly issued a “curious†statement.

Regards,

USA320Pilot

 

[TheLarkAscending]

However, in the past I have written about previous corporate transactions between US and UA.........For example, I first broke the news blah-blah-blah......

Yes, you have written, ad nauseum, regarding conjectural corporate transactions that the reputation gained by repetition, alone, precedes itself. You've made stabs in the dark so often that portions may actually have transpired, in some fashion. Extra credit is granted for good guessing, period. Without further adieu, may we please move into the present?

 

[767jetz]

However, in the past I have written about previous corporate transactions between US and UA.

Yes. We are all very impressed with the "obviously" well informed and accurate opinions you are famous for smothering these boards with. We are even more impressed with your resilience in the face of having none of it EVER come to fruition.

Keep up the good work.

These days, your unique style of entertainment is sorely missed.

 

[USA320Pilot]

Lark,

I agree that we should move to the present.

However, to explain myself I have addressed UA-US coporate transactions 5 times and each time rudely discredited for my comments because the information had not been made public or certain posters did not like the news. The first time was at the final ALPA MEC LOA 79 decision meeting (prior to the 2000 Jim Goodwin-Stephen Wolf attempt), what I called the UCT (Bronner's commitment to provide RSA funding to acquire UA assets if the Chicago-based airline defaulted on DIP financing requirements due to revenue losses associated with the SARS epidemic or the Iraqi War), the strategic alliance, the ICT (Project Minnow), and this year's recent M&A attempt.

It gets a little tiring to provide information to people who want to have an adult conversation and then to see others create a disrespectful discussion. And, these grown people call them self a professional? Therefore, it appears it is once again necessary to post the facts and public information that supports these comments.

I hope that makes sense.

Regards,

USA320Pilot

 

[TheLarkAscending]

I agree that we should move to the present. However, to explain myself ..... It gets a little tiring to provide information to people who want to have an adult conversation and then to see others create a disrespectful discussion. And, these grown people call them self a professional? Therefore, it appears it is once again necessary to post the facts and public information that supports these comments.

IF it is tiring, then, please agree to move on. We, honestly, know where you stand. There is absolutely no need to publish it again. Why you believe it necessary to gain the approval or acknowledgment of a message board audience is something only you can answer, especially when you've declared them to be unprofessional and disrespectful.

On a more current and topical note: Will be awaiting the very interesting news.

 

[scot]

OK, since nothing has happened for a while and the "latest" merger info we have here is from 2000, we're going to put this one to rest. When, and if, the next big announcement comes this week (or even soon) as predicted, we can revisit the idea. Thanks for playing.