Questionable Article

[Cosmo]

... Douglas Baird, who teaches bankruptcy law at the University of Chicago, said his "guess" is that the stabilization board will want to see an equity investor.

Chip asks: Who first wrote on this board that United would need an equity plan sponsor to emerge?

Chip:

This is why so many people don't believe what you say -- you take someone's opinion and "magically" turn it into a "fact" in your statement. It's a prime example that shows how you manipulate other people's comments to fit into your anti-United agenda.

Meanwhile, with a legislative solution to underfunded pensions unlikely before Congress recesses, the Rocky Mountain News reported the ATSB has told United that it won't take a position on "any particular pension initiative," according to the minutes of an April 23 board meeting in Washington, D.C.

That's why United is in no hurry to leave the protections of the bankruptcy process. It can wait for legislative action in the next session of Congress starting in January 2004. And the statement that the ATSB won't take a position on "any particular pension initiative" is a neutral comment, neither positive nor negative. Do you have any facts that would support your not-unexpected negative slant on the ATSB's comment? Also, do you believe that there is even the remote possibility that the ATSB has met at least once with United in the more than seven months since their April 23 board meeting, and that the carrier thus has a pretty good understanding of the ATSB's requirements (lo, dare I say it, perhaps even better than you do?)?

Also noteworthy, I understand members of the US Airways executive suite recently said that after stabilizing the business, US Airways will "then consider a merger and consolidation is inevitable."

Apparently, stabilizing US Airways' business is no longer the objective, transforming it is. According to a "good source", US Airways CEO David Seigel, as reported earlier today in this Reuters article referring to Southwest's upcoming entry into the PHL market, "We face little choice but to remain competitive and match fares, and if we don't we'd see our market share evaporate in Philadelphia. This new revenue environment is coming quickly, and to meet the challenge we have to adapt our business plan. That's the next and critical step of our continuing transformation." [My emphasis.]

So perhaps you should pay a little more attention to the problems facing your own company, and a little less to those facing United. After all, the Reuters article also noted that "US Airways, the No. 7 U.S. airline, posted a loss of $90 million in the third quarter and has said it still has a long way to go in cutting costs further. Analysts have questioned the airline's strategy and expressed concern about its high costs." [My emphasis again.] Something to think about, right?

 

[USA320Pilot]

Cosmo:

I'm not going to enter into another endless debate with you but you're wrong -- dead wrong.

Regards,

Chip

 

[Busdrvr]

Yep Cos, you are WRONG, Reuters didn't report it and Dave never said it.... 🙄

Chip,
Speculation is one thing, we all do it, but the way I see it, you are doing one of two things

1. You are lying and have no "sources" internal to either company, or
2. You (or your source) are comiting a couple SEC violations by reporting insider info on a semi public board. I haven't seen any SEC filings to back up any releases...

In the case of number one, would you be trying to pass out known false info on a public forum in attempt to artificially influence the value of your U holdings?


Well?

 

[USA320Pilot]

Busdrvr:

Everything I have said is true. If I make a mistake then I admit it, which I have done in the past.

What I find interesting is that you and some like posters come to the US Airways message board to find out information about your company and then dispute my posts. I really do not care whether or not you believe my information or not, but it's all true.

Regards,

Chip

 

[Jetlaagd]

Busdrvr:

Everything I have said is true. If I make a mistake then I admit it, which I have done in the past.

I really do not care whether or not you believe my information or not, but it's all true.

Regards,

Chip

Well Chip,if that is not another contadiction on your part.In one sentance you said you have admited mistakes.The next you say how true everything is that you wrote. It cannot be both, Chip! Disrespecting you more each day....

 

[Cosmo]

Everything I have said is true. If I make a mistake then I admit it, which I have done in the past.

Chip:

That's unadulterated hogwash -- I know it, you know it, and I believe everyone else who reads your comments knows it! See my post on page three of this thread and respond to that before giving us any more of your "I only tell the truth" drivel.

And I think Busdrvr has a good point about potential SEC violations. I'll bet the SEC's Enforcement Division would be very interested in how a mere line pilot could get such a vast amount of inside information regarding not one but two public companies. Especially since you claim that everything you say on these boards is true.

And with regard to your comment that I'm "wrong -- dead wrong", at least about the "need" for United to attract equity financing to emerge from Chapter 11, you should consider the following quote from an article in the December 3, 2003, issue of the "Daily Deal" (yeah, I hadn't heard of it either before today, but it's probably as good a source as the Beaver County Times that you often refer to):

"We're not encouraging United to look for any equity infusion," said Carole Neville of Sonnenschein Nath & Rosenthal LLP, a lawyer for UAL's unsecured creditors committee at a conference in New York on Monday, Dec. 1.

"I don't think the ATSB will require this," she said, referring to the Air Transportation Stabilization Board.

Neville said the reason the unsecureds don't want private equity financing for UAL is that such a move would dilute the shares creditors are likely to receive as part of a reorganization.

The ATSB requires outside private funding before it lends cash to an airline.

Perhaps this explains your inability to understand why United hasn't attracted any potential equity funding for its emergence from Chapter 11. As the unsecured creditors committee lawyer Neville makes clear, the unsecured creditors don't want United to attract such funding! Remember, they're the folks that will vote on United's POR. And also note that the article says "The ATSB requires outside private funding", not "outside private equity funding". BTW, is the unsecured creditors committee lawyer a good enough source for you on this subject?

 

[Stick-n-Rudder]

Just got a brand new Op's Specs revision. Anyone know why, under the "not authorized and shall not :" section it states: Conduct IOE using check airman employed by United Airlines in lieu of FAA inspectors?

 

[Cosmo]

Further to my previous post on this thread ...

An article was published this afternoon by Susan Carey of Dow Jones Business News/The Wall Street Journal regarding United having nearly completed its post-bankruptcy funding negotiations with two of the banks that are its DIP financiers. If all goes according to plan, there is now the strong likelihood that United will refile its ATSB loan application within a few weeks. Read the article here.

One noteworthy excerpt from the article:

Written off for nearly dead a year ago when it filed for bankruptcy-court protection, United Airlines parent UAL Corp. has rebounded strongly enough that two big money-center banks competed fiercely to underwrite a $2 billion financing that would allow the airline emerge from Chapter 11 next year.

And another:

Neither plan envisioned an injection of capital from a private equity investor, these people said. Knowledgeable individuals said today that UAL persuaded the two to work together, and plans to let J.P. Morgan lead the financing, naming Citigroup co-arranger.

And another:

The fact that the two big banks fought to get the business independently "is a sign that people are beginning to like what they see," said one individual with knowledge of the situation.

And another:

The version of the UAL business plan that lenders looked at, and the one that is expected to go to the loan-guarantee board, foresees only modest, achievable pension relief. "United can argue that pension cash flow can only get better," said one individual familiar with the company. "The strategy is to put out a program they can beat."

Another person who has seen the plan said the assumptions "are pretty modest. It doesn't assume a big recovery. It's financeable."

All in all, some real good news for US Airways' code-sharing business partner United.

 

[Cosmo]

And this similar Reuters article issued about the same time this afternoon also has some interesting quotes, such as this one:

Several sources said the non-government-backed piece of the overall $2.0 billion loan was likely to be about 20 percent, or $400 million -- rather than the traditional 10 percent -- to show a vote of confidence in the airline's plan for operating successfully once it gets out of Chapter 11.

And this one:

At one point, the airline had floated the idea it might seek up to $2.5 billion in exit financing.

"It will be in the $2 billion range as opposed to some bigger number," said one source familiar with the ongoing discussions. The reason is that United's cash flow has improved such that the larger number is not needed.

As I said, it looks like things are falling into place for United, with the IAD/ACA/Mesa and airport municipal bond issues being the only major problems yet to be ironed out. And IMHO, those will be much easier to fix than the funding/pension issues that now appear to be nearing resolution. The next few weeks should be interesting.

 

[N230UA]

Chip asks: Who first wrote on this board that United would need an equity plan sponsor to emerge? Moreover, who said it could be RSA? The article that started this topic had analysts echoing what a prolific poster first reported on this board. Who was the poster?

My sources indicate that the sun will rise tomorrow. My sources, true to the best of my ingnorance, tell me that it will also set. And a certain ignorant clown theoretician (ICT) will post another post on the US Airways board of USaviation.com

...and I will post this pre-emptively:
N230UA asks: Who first wrote on this board that the sun would rise on this day? Moreover, who said it would also set? The previous lines of this post had words echoing the words that you are reading right now. Who was the poster?

Chip, I do believe that a certain ICT is bound to happen. Yes, even tomorrow! And the day after!

I believe ignorant clown theories will happen inevitably, here on this very board even!

Disrespectfully,
I'm laughing at you

 

[USA320Pilot]

Cosmo:

Your comment regarding "hogwash" is wrong and you know it, but that doesn't stop you from posting, does it...

In regard to exit financing, I have said all along I thought United could survive and this is just one piece of the pie. However, it appears to obtain the loan guarantee United is going to have to have double the amount of "at risk" financing required of America West and US Airways, the airline may have to terminate its pension plans, and the company will have two loaded guns to its head with discussions on-going as to what buyers will ultimately want the government-backed paper, which one source referred to as the "gold standard" among various types of issues.

Ouch!

Regardless, reports indicate that once US Airways proves it can lower its unit costs and United can prove it can emerge from bankruptcy (by the way...what about the antitrust discussions on the Mesa-ACA deal and how will this effect United's Dulles hub?), there is reason to believe there will be a corporate transaction.

Regards,

Chip

 

[USA320Pilot]

N230AU:

With all due repsect, my 8-year old son shows more respect than you do and he doesn't have to hide behind a computer screen as an "uninformed" person with no courage -- who insults others. But, that's o.k. to show a lack of decorum hiding behind a PC without having to bare your soul.

Regards,

Chip

 

[N230UA]

With all due disrespect,

was United ever planning to emerge WITHOUT exit financing?

No airline has ever exited bankruptcy successfully without exit financing. This is a given, and you don't need an ATP, Ph. D. or even a GED to understand that bankrupt companies need money to leave BK.

What will you predict next?

There is reason to believe that the Airbus 320 is a particular type of aeroplane, or "flying machine" if you will. With this is mind, it wouldn't surprise me if one flew tomorrow...

 

[N230UA]

Chip, you Sophist!

Decorum?I guess you think that not responding to questions of your claims or always putting a "regards" next to the fluff you write constitutes online etiquette.

So you put your real name on these boards. That makes you an idiot. Might bite you in the butt someday. I'm sure your sources like their info being disseminated.

Remind me again, how much money do the voices in your head make, and what are their titles?

 

[scot]

Once again I'd like to thank everyone involved for taking another thread into the land of name calling and insults. This one is done.