Republicans to United: Screw You!

[atabuy]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 12/5/2002 832 AM Rhino wrote:
----------------
[/blockquote]
( "So you're saying the ATSB rejected the application because of politics?")

Yes. As I mentioned in another thread. Ual and the atsb were in talks about the business plan and concessions. Why wouldn't the board have told them then, it wasn't enough.

("Hastert led a huge congressional delegation that supported the loan.")

Much ado about nothing. It looks like a good alibi.

("Do you think a viable bizplan (which UAL mgmt/labor could not come up with) would have been turned down? US' was conditionally approved, although the revenue projections have since been deemed too optimistic.")

The board said nothing during the meetings to say they would not approve the plan as is. If they know what it will take to stay solvent in this economy, they should have proposed the plan to Ual. My opinion is emotion after 9/11 created the board. Politics and money controlled it after people lost interest. Money always tempers judgement.
The war effort is costing the US great amounts of money. Also the idiotic tax cuts Bush wants to keep pushing.
There was no guaranty Ual would fail. Just opinions.
Of course, our union membership sure did not give many a feeling that they cared at all. Again from my point of view, sheer stupidity.

 

[atabuy]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 12/5/2002 832 AM Rhino wrote:
----------------
[/blockquote]
( "So you're saying the ATSB rejected the application because of politics?")

Yes. As I mentioned in another thread. Ual and the atsb were in talks about the business plan and concessions. Why wouldn't the board have told them then, it wasn't enough.

("Hastert led a huge congressional delegation that supported the loan.")

Much ado about nothing. It looks like a good alibi.

("Do you think a viable bizplan (which UAL mgmt/labor could not come up with) would have been turned down? US' was conditionally approved, although the revenue projections have since been deemed too optimistic.")

The board said nothing during the meetings to say they would not approve the plan as is. If they know what it will take to stay solvent in this economy, they should have proposed the plan to Ual. My opinion is emotion after 9/11 created the board. Politics and money controlled it after people lost interest. Money always tempers judgement.
The war effort is costing the US great amounts of money. Also the idiotic tax cuts Bush wants to keep pushing.
There was no guaranty Ual would fail. Just opinions.
Of course, our union membership sure did not give many a feeling that they cared at all. Again from my point of view, sheer stupidity.

 

[muskrat30]

UAL's overall image has not been the best the past few years. Read the article on page D5 of todays(12-5) WSJ, it covers it rather well. I can't help but think of those pilots that thought they were so smart in the summer of 2000. You think George W is out to get us(yes I am a UAL pilot) and our past labor troubles have not contributed to our current condition ? Our present status is not sustainable.
I hope for the best, but have been preparing for this the past 1 1/2 years.

 

[muskrat30]

UAL's overall image has not been the best the past few years. Read the article on page D5 of todays(12-5) WSJ, it covers it rather well. I can't help but think of those pilots that thought they were so smart in the summer of 2000. You think George W is out to get us(yes I am a UAL pilot) and our past labor troubles have not contributed to our current condition ? Our present status is not sustainable.
I hope for the best, but have been preparing for this the past 1 1/2 years.

 

[Rhino]

ATABUY,

"Ual and the atsb were in talks about the business plan and concessions. Why wouldn't the board have told them then, it wasn't enough."

They did tell UAL. Several times, in fact UAL mgmt was still trying to e-mail updates to the ATSB last Tuesday.

"It looks like a good alibi."

What a stupid thing to say.

"The board said nothing during the meetings to say they would not approve the plan as is."

Yes they did.

"Also the idiotic tax cuts Bush wants to keep pushing"

Your grasp of economics is very poor. Did you put the bizplan together?

 

[Rhino]

ATABUY,

"Ual and the atsb were in talks about the business plan and concessions. Why wouldn't the board have told them then, it wasn't enough."

They did tell UAL. Several times, in fact UAL mgmt was still trying to e-mail updates to the ATSB last Tuesday.

"It looks like a good alibi."

What a stupid thing to say.

"The board said nothing during the meetings to say they would not approve the plan as is."

Yes they did.

"Also the idiotic tax cuts Bush wants to keep pushing"

Your grasp of economics is very poor. Did you put the bizplan together?

 

[lstwhknight]

In the meantime, to watch one of our leading carriers fall to its knees and do nothing, is in my view not in our best national interest and therefore unAmerican. So while I'm a free market capitalist, I'm also willing to intervene when it's in our best interests and when thousands of jobs and the families they represent are at stake, and when the air transportation system we enjoy could be threatened, and when the economic quality of life we enjoy could be affected. I guess you could call me a "compassionate conservative".

Marky

Why is it when I read this,I can only remember the lapel pin united handed out to all of its employees with a screw driven through a continental airlines tail,when continental was in BK.MMMMMMMMMMMMMM???Is that UAL idea of compassion?If it is then maybe its the old "what comes around goes around"Lets get real.
Self survival is what I see.

 

[lstwhknight]

In the meantime, to watch one of our leading carriers fall to its knees and do nothing, is in my view not in our best national interest and therefore unAmerican. So while I'm a free market capitalist, I'm also willing to intervene when it's in our best interests and when thousands of jobs and the families they represent are at stake, and when the air transportation system we enjoy could be threatened, and when the economic quality of life we enjoy could be affected. I guess you could call me a "compassionate conservative".

Marky

Why is it when I read this,I can only remember the lapel pin united handed out to all of its employees with a screw driven through a continental airlines tail,when continental was in BK.MMMMMMMMMMMMMM???Is that UAL idea of compassion?If it is then maybe its the old "what comes around goes around"Lets get real.
Self survival is what I see.

 

[US2]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 12/4/2002 1043 PM MrMarky wrote:

When you get down to the brass tacks, the ATSB vote was pure politics. Of the three ATSB Board members, two are Republicans, the representative of the Republican Treasury Secretary and the representative of the Republican Federal Reserve Board Chairman, both of whom turned a cold, heartless shoulder on United, its 86,000 employees, our national air transportation system and American prestige around the world.

The only vote in United's favor came from the representative of Transportation Secretary Norm Mineta, who is the only Democrat in the Bush cabinet, and arguably, the most knowledgeable regarding the airline industry, as Secretary of Transportation and having served many years in the Congress on the House Transportation Committee and its Aviation Subcommittee.

There is unfortunately very little surprise here, except of course for those at United who may have unwittingly cast their votes for the party of their executors, who have now taken them one step closer to the streets, and when they get there will do nothing to lend them a helping hand.

It is a sad day for United. It is a sad day for the United States of America.
----------------
[/blockquote]

Sorry, Marky, but you are misreading the politics here. Edward Gramlich, Greenspan's Fed designee, was a Clinton appointee to the Fed. Formerly an economics professor, he was a professor of mine at Michigan and I cannot believe that his vote was driven by anything other than the numbers presented to the ATSB.

 

[US2]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 12/4/2002 1043 PM MrMarky wrote:

When you get down to the brass tacks, the ATSB vote was pure politics. Of the three ATSB Board members, two are Republicans, the representative of the Republican Treasury Secretary and the representative of the Republican Federal Reserve Board Chairman, both of whom turned a cold, heartless shoulder on United, its 86,000 employees, our national air transportation system and American prestige around the world.

The only vote in United's favor came from the representative of Transportation Secretary Norm Mineta, who is the only Democrat in the Bush cabinet, and arguably, the most knowledgeable regarding the airline industry, as Secretary of Transportation and having served many years in the Congress on the House Transportation Committee and its Aviation Subcommittee.

There is unfortunately very little surprise here, except of course for those at United who may have unwittingly cast their votes for the party of their executors, who have now taken them one step closer to the streets, and when they get there will do nothing to lend them a helping hand.

It is a sad day for United. It is a sad day for the United States of America.
----------------
[/blockquote]

Sorry, Marky, but you are misreading the politics here. Edward Gramlich, Greenspan's Fed designee, was a Clinton appointee to the Fed. Formerly an economics professor, he was a professor of mine at Michigan and I cannot believe that his vote was driven by anything other than the numbers presented to the ATSB.

 

[Oliver Stone''s Apprentice]

[blockquote]
----------------

In the meantime, to watch one of our leading carriers fall to its knees and do nothing, is in my view not in our best national interest and therefore unAmerican. So while I'm a free market capitalist, I'm also willing to intervene when it's in our best interests and when thousands of jobs and the families they represent are at stake, and when the air transportation system we enjoy could be threatened, and when the economic quality of life we enjoy could be affected. I guess you could call me a "compassionate conservative".

----------------
[/blockquote]

Keep things in perspective a bit... UA still represents less than 20% of the US passenger air transportation system, and a smaller percentage of the cargo system. Assuming UAL were to shut down tomorrow (which it clearly won't), the void would be temporary, just as it was when PA, EA, and ML all shut down within a 12 month period.

How many thousands of families were impacted in the collapse of companies like Enron, Arthur Anderson, Montgomery Ward, the Dot.Com industry, or in the downsizing in the telecom sector?

Where were the government backed loans for those sectors?

The Republicans have held to a "hands off" policy, with the exception of the cash payments due to the actual shutdown on 9/11.

Part of a "hands off" policy is allowing companies to restructure on their own, or fail. More often than not, it is a smaller player who fails, more often than not due to taking on more debt than they can pay off. But occasionally, a larger player will do the same, and in this case, it was UAL.

Every 10 years, we've seen one or more large carriers fail. In the 80's, it was Braniff. In the 90's, it was Pan Am and Eastern. TWA was the first to fail in the 2000's. Odds are that there may be another.

[blockquote]
----------------

If the ATSB is going to act like bankers and say "you don't qualify for the loan - your recovery plan is inadequate", then why does the board even exist??

----------------
[/blockquote]

Good question. The ATSB was never intended to be a blank check. It was intended to make sure that carriers with a sound business plan would still have access to financing. Carriers who were able to sell their business plan to the ATSB got funding.

There may also have been a fear that losing medium size carriers was a bigger risk to the overall transportation system and a bigger threat to competition, since to a large degree, they keep bigger carriers honest...

That might explain why niche players like Vanguard, Frontier Flying Service, and even National were left to the wolves, but middle tier carriers like America West, Frontier, ATA, and Aloha were approved.

With that in mind, I can't help but wonder if the ATSB purposely set the bar high for US Airways, knowing that they'd never meet the conditions without resizing themself into a medium size player along the lines of America West.

With UAL, there'd be no way to shrink down that much.

 

[Oliver Stone''s Apprentice]

[blockquote]
----------------

In the meantime, to watch one of our leading carriers fall to its knees and do nothing, is in my view not in our best national interest and therefore unAmerican. So while I'm a free market capitalist, I'm also willing to intervene when it's in our best interests and when thousands of jobs and the families they represent are at stake, and when the air transportation system we enjoy could be threatened, and when the economic quality of life we enjoy could be affected. I guess you could call me a "compassionate conservative".

----------------
[/blockquote]

Keep things in perspective a bit... UA still represents less than 20% of the US passenger air transportation system, and a smaller percentage of the cargo system. Assuming UAL were to shut down tomorrow (which it clearly won't), the void would be temporary, just as it was when PA, EA, and ML all shut down within a 12 month period.

How many thousands of families were impacted in the collapse of companies like Enron, Arthur Anderson, Montgomery Ward, the Dot.Com industry, or in the downsizing in the telecom sector?

Where were the government backed loans for those sectors?

The Republicans have held to a "hands off" policy, with the exception of the cash payments due to the actual shutdown on 9/11.

Part of a "hands off" policy is allowing companies to restructure on their own, or fail. More often than not, it is a smaller player who fails, more often than not due to taking on more debt than they can pay off. But occasionally, a larger player will do the same, and in this case, it was UAL.

Every 10 years, we've seen one or more large carriers fail. In the 80's, it was Braniff. In the 90's, it was Pan Am and Eastern. TWA was the first to fail in the 2000's. Odds are that there may be another.

[blockquote]
----------------

If the ATSB is going to act like bankers and say "you don't qualify for the loan - your recovery plan is inadequate", then why does the board even exist??

----------------
[/blockquote]

Good question. The ATSB was never intended to be a blank check. It was intended to make sure that carriers with a sound business plan would still have access to financing. Carriers who were able to sell their business plan to the ATSB got funding.

There may also have been a fear that losing medium size carriers was a bigger risk to the overall transportation system and a bigger threat to competition, since to a large degree, they keep bigger carriers honest...

That might explain why niche players like Vanguard, Frontier Flying Service, and even National were left to the wolves, but middle tier carriers like America West, Frontier, ATA, and Aloha were approved.

With that in mind, I can't help but wonder if the ATSB purposely set the bar high for US Airways, knowing that they'd never meet the conditions without resizing themself into a medium size player along the lines of America West.

With UAL, there'd be no way to shrink down that much.

 

[ITRADE]

[P]
[BLOCKQUOTE][BR]----------------[BR]On 12/5/2002 2:18:36 PM MrMarky wrote:
[P]
[BLOCKQUOTE][BR]I don't know how things work at your alma mater in Michigan, but I do know how things work in Washington. Anyone who thinks for a minute that the ATSB is not under the influence of the administration is either overconsuming something, or is terribly naive.[BR][BR]The fact is that this is a political decision. In fact, the entire mandate of the ATSB runs counter to the administration's philosophy despite the broad bipartisan support in Congress to enact the ATSA. Hence, only two small carriers have received the guarantees, for an agregate amount totaling less than 5 percent of the $10 billion allocated by Congress. [BR][BR]
[P][/P]----------------[/BLOCKQUOTE][/BLOCKQUOTE]
[P]You really are becoming dillusional to win your point. If you care to inform us on how ATSB is doing its job, maybe you should let us know how many of these applications you've worked on. Personally, I have worked with one and have lobbied for the approval of one. The ATSB could care less about the politics of it. They, being knowledgeable of finances while keeping in mind the public trust at the same time, realized that the plans simply were not adding up. Again, you're basing all your arguments on conjecture and emotion. [BR][BR]I've noted that you've completely backed off your wild "it was the Republicans" assertion and have resorted to a general political assertion. That, too, fails miserably.[/P]

 

[ITRADE]

[P]
[BLOCKQUOTE][BR]----------------[BR]On 12/5/2002 2:18:36 PM MrMarky wrote:
[P]
[BLOCKQUOTE][BR]I don't know how things work at your alma mater in Michigan, but I do know how things work in Washington. Anyone who thinks for a minute that the ATSB is not under the influence of the administration is either overconsuming something, or is terribly naive.[BR][BR]The fact is that this is a political decision. In fact, the entire mandate of the ATSB runs counter to the administration's philosophy despite the broad bipartisan support in Congress to enact the ATSA. Hence, only two small carriers have received the guarantees, for an agregate amount totaling less than 5 percent of the $10 billion allocated by Congress. [BR][BR]
[P][/P]----------------[/BLOCKQUOTE][/BLOCKQUOTE]
[P]You really are becoming dillusional to win your point. If you care to inform us on how ATSB is doing its job, maybe you should let us know how many of these applications you've worked on. Personally, I have worked with one and have lobbied for the approval of one. The ATSB could care less about the politics of it. They, being knowledgeable of finances while keeping in mind the public trust at the same time, realized that the plans simply were not adding up. Again, you're basing all your arguments on conjecture and emotion. [BR][BR]I've noted that you've completely backed off your wild "it was the Republicans" assertion and have resorted to a general political assertion. That, too, fails miserably.[/P]

 

[MrMarky]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 12/5/2002 1234 PM US2 wrote:

Sorry, Marky, but you are misreading the politics here. Edward Gramlich, Greenspan's Fed designee, was a Clinton appointee to the Fed. Formerly an economics professor, he was a professor of mine at Michigan and I cannot believe that his vote was driven by anything other than the numbers presented to the ATSB.
----------------
[/blockquote]

Hi US2,

I don't know how things work at your alma mater in Michigan, but I do know how things work in Washington. Anyone who thinks for a minute that the ATSB is not under the influence of the administration is either overconsuming something, or is terribly naive.

The fact is that this is a political decision. In fact, the entire mandate of the ATSB runs counter to the administration's philosophy despite the broad bipartisan support in Congress to enact the ATSA. Hence, only two small carriers have received the guarantees, for an agregate amount totaling less than 5 percent of the $10 billion allocated by Congress.

The ATSB was established to aid a distressed industry. That would seem to imply that government assistance was necessary to maintain the solvency of our airlines when they were unable to access the capital markets independently. If the ATSB is going to act like bankers and say "you don't qualify for the loan - your recovery plan is inadequate", then why does the board even exist?? If United and others could qualify for the loan, there would be no reason to have an ATSB or for the carriers to seek its assistance.

The whole concept of the government loan guarantees is pretty simple. It's to help those carriers who would otherwise be unable to secure financing. For the ATSB to take the position that you have to qualify for the loan in order to get the loan guarantee, turns the entire purpose of the board's very existence on its head. It's the consummate Catch 22. "We're here to help you get loans you can't qualify for on your own. But in order to receive our help, you have to be able to qualify for the loan."

Take care,

Marky