U
UAL_TECH
Guest
JungleClone said:
OK, I give up.
You've convinced me that all is futile and I agree to be assimilated………
(NOT)!!!
UTRuling Blocks Ual Jet Seizure
- Thread starter skycruiser
- Start date
OK, I give up.
You've convinced me that all is futile and I agree to be assimilated………
(NOT)!!!
UT
Ukridge
Senior
- Aug 27, 2002
- 354
- 0
World Traveler wrote: "The point of my post is that UA's relations with all of its stakeholders - employees, aircraft owners, and municipalities - have all been contentious"
Indeed. I do not mean to be pedantic here but why would a firm not be just that - particulary when it finds itself in such a situation that seems repeatedly to be cast as dire? In observing the news articles that are in print concerning United and perusing this forum, the general sentiment seems to be one that is framed in what is generally described as the future perfect tense. An example would be in a prognostication such as "When the 1st of June 2005 arrives, United will have been out of business already for a month." This is a tensual handmaiden to the straight future tense of "United is going to go out of business."
So, nearly all have accepted the fact that one should be allowed only to speak of your airline in the past tense - that its fate is sealed and only the match clock must tick off the remaining seconds.
However, let us imagine that there are those within the body corporate who either as a personel development project, a challenge, or even pride wish to prolong the ongoing entity of the firm for as long as possible. Knowing that nearly every non-eleemosynary corporate body is by nature amoral (not immoral or unmoral for those who do not know this word), then it will, and should, take every action accorded it in the legal structure to attempt to further the continuence of the operation (unless the board decides otherwise) - to do otherwise would be contrary to the spirit and in many cases written charter of the company.
In other words, they better well bloody be contentious. They very well may be convinced that there is a chance to save the firm and they will do everything to do so. If the negotiations are contentious and they liquidate anyway, then no love has been lost for all is, so to speak, lost. If however, they survive, then they have at least accomplished the survival and then are faced with the less Herculean task of just repairing frayed and tested business relationships.
I must admit to being philosophically intrigued by your supposition World. You level critique for United's corporate behavour in this process. Yet implicit in your critique is an unspkoken supposition that this will harm United. Well, it would harm United only if United were to survive - something that you (from my humble reading ablility) seemed to assume as unlikely.
An interesting paradox is it not?
Cheers
BTW, I do not agree with the supposition that United is only waiting for the clock to tick. Since the better mousetrap has indeed not been invented, it still has a chance to compete if it adroitly navigates the seas.
Also, not pertaining to WT but rather other postings, I am rather bemused by the clamour to change your bankruptcy laws. Not having been able to drive United from the field in competition, the idea now is that the laws must change to let the others survive. Ah, every one loves capitalism except when they have to compete! European laws do not (for the most part) provision for Chp 11. I would think one would be careful for what they wish as this is indeed a very cold plate to face.
Indeed. I do not mean to be pedantic here but why would a firm not be just that - particulary when it finds itself in such a situation that seems repeatedly to be cast as dire? In observing the news articles that are in print concerning United and perusing this forum, the general sentiment seems to be one that is framed in what is generally described as the future perfect tense. An example would be in a prognostication such as "When the 1st of June 2005 arrives, United will have been out of business already for a month." This is a tensual handmaiden to the straight future tense of "United is going to go out of business."
So, nearly all have accepted the fact that one should be allowed only to speak of your airline in the past tense - that its fate is sealed and only the match clock must tick off the remaining seconds.
However, let us imagine that there are those within the body corporate who either as a personel development project, a challenge, or even pride wish to prolong the ongoing entity of the firm for as long as possible. Knowing that nearly every non-eleemosynary corporate body is by nature amoral (not immoral or unmoral for those who do not know this word), then it will, and should, take every action accorded it in the legal structure to attempt to further the continuence of the operation (unless the board decides otherwise) - to do otherwise would be contrary to the spirit and in many cases written charter of the company.
In other words, they better well bloody be contentious. They very well may be convinced that there is a chance to save the firm and they will do everything to do so. If the negotiations are contentious and they liquidate anyway, then no love has been lost for all is, so to speak, lost. If however, they survive, then they have at least accomplished the survival and then are faced with the less Herculean task of just repairing frayed and tested business relationships.
I must admit to being philosophically intrigued by your supposition World. You level critique for United's corporate behavour in this process. Yet implicit in your critique is an unspkoken supposition that this will harm United. Well, it would harm United only if United were to survive - something that you (from my humble reading ablility) seemed to assume as unlikely.
An interesting paradox is it not?
Cheers
BTW, I do not agree with the supposition that United is only waiting for the clock to tick. Since the better mousetrap has indeed not been invented, it still has a chance to compete if it adroitly navigates the seas.
Also, not pertaining to WT but rather other postings, I am rather bemused by the clamour to change your bankruptcy laws. Not having been able to drive United from the field in competition, the idea now is that the laws must change to let the others survive. Ah, every one loves capitalism except when they have to compete! European laws do not (for the most part) provision for Chp 11. I would think one would be careful for what they wish as this is indeed a very cold plate to face.
Ken MacTiernan
Veteran
JungleClone said:
jungleclone,
Gee, with the attitude you paint it makes me wonder if you are willing to fight for what is right. (No aggressive tone in this post. Just an observation.) What you post are points that the airline companies want us to think. They want us to think THEY have all the cards. They want us to think that the courts are bought and paid for. Lorenzo thought the same thing. But LABOR had the last word. Labor right now, and by labor I do not mean all unions, the AFA and AMFA are clearing their throats to speak LOUD AND CLEAR!
The tone of your post makes it sound as if you were a Colonial Pioneer you would be saying, "Look yea. The British are in our ports and in our towns. All we can do is throw tea into the harbor. That's about all the fight you'll be able to put up." The Colonists did more than dump tea. They fought for what was right.
The EAL employees did what was right & necessary. The airlines think that if they act against labor COLLECTIVELY they can break our backs. Only one problem; they are thinking like Lorenzo did. The time has come and it is OUR turn to stand together and face this aggression head on and do what it takes. If we don't we will all know what it would have been to live under the Crown's Rule.
WorldTraveler
Corn Field
- Dec 5, 2003
- 21,709
- 10,662
- Banned
- #19
It is erroneous to think that all other carriers will slash employee costs in order to remain competitive simply because it is not at all a given that UA or US will survive. The four solvent airlines are not about to alienate their workforces in order to get costs down to a level that UA and US need to get out of bankruptcy.
Remember, UA and US are in a very different position that AA, CO, DL, and NW. UA and US have to convince the financial community that they can MAKE MONEY and are worthy of an investment to get themselves out of bankruptcy. The hurdle is much lower for the four solvent airlines since, for the most part, their financing doesn’t have the same financial controls that UA and US need.
Ultimately, it has been shown that CO, DL, and NW (and possibly AA recently) are using their assets more efficiently than UA and US and are doing a better job of limiting revenue loss. It doesn’t matter how low the wages or lease rates go if the assets are not being used as efficiently as they can be and are not being deployed where there is a chance of making money. US has faced one revenue assault after another. UA has been more prudent in the past year but UA’s current revenue as a percentage of pre-9/11 revenue is still considerably lower than at other carriers. (US excluded due new company but has had comparable ratios).
3Q04 Operating Revenue as % of 3Q00 Operating Revenue
AMR 90
CAL 98
DAL 89
NWA 96
UAL 82
Remember, UA and US are in a very different position that AA, CO, DL, and NW. UA and US have to convince the financial community that they can MAKE MONEY and are worthy of an investment to get themselves out of bankruptcy. The hurdle is much lower for the four solvent airlines since, for the most part, their financing doesn’t have the same financial controls that UA and US need.
Ultimately, it has been shown that CO, DL, and NW (and possibly AA recently) are using their assets more efficiently than UA and US and are doing a better job of limiting revenue loss. It doesn’t matter how low the wages or lease rates go if the assets are not being used as efficiently as they can be and are not being deployed where there is a chance of making money. US has faced one revenue assault after another. UA has been more prudent in the past year but UA’s current revenue as a percentage of pre-9/11 revenue is still considerably lower than at other carriers. (US excluded due new company but has had comparable ratios).
3Q04 Operating Revenue as % of 3Q00 Operating Revenue
AMR 90
CAL 98
DAL 89
NWA 96
UAL 82
mrfish3726
Veteran
- Jul 7, 2004
- 931
- 0
Worldtravler always has pretty accurate posts 787!!! Post your numbers, tell us just how good a shape UniTED is truly in??? Give us the numbers for UniTED and TED, tell us the true story PLEASE????? Give us the LF and profits that TED (AKA UniTED SHUTTLE) and UAL are raking in PLEASE??? 
SHOW US THE MONEY 787 
SHOW US THE MONEY 787 
Dave
Advanced
- Apr 26, 2003
- 131
- 0
mrfish3726 said:Worldtravler always has pretty accurate posts 787!!! Post your numbers, tell us just how good a shape UniTED is truly in??? Give us the numbers for UniTED and TED, tell us the true story PLEASE????? Give us the LF and profits that TED (AKA UniTED SHUTTLE) and UAL are raking in PLEASE???
[post="204702"][/post]
Gee. a fired UAL employee finding joy at the hope of United's demise...how original.
mrfish3726
Veteran
- Jul 7, 2004
- 931
- 0
DAVE,
Reputed, no proof of that! Just a rumor started by MS FLY is all. You say it to try to discredit me, but I am truly a guy that was smart enough to get the hell out while the getting was good. I should have left in 2000 when I could have gotten some good scratch for my EFLOP, but I've already (45K) made that loss up since then!
Reputed, no proof of that! Just a rumor started by MS FLY is all. You say it to try to discredit me, but I am truly a guy that was smart enough to get the hell out while the getting was good. I should have left in 2000 when I could have gotten some good scratch for my EFLOP, but I've already (45K) made that loss up since then!
Dave
Advanced
- Apr 26, 2003
- 131
- 0
mrfish3726 said:DAVE,
Reputed, no proof of that! Just a rumor started by MS FLY is all. You say it to try to discredit me, but I am truly a guy that was smart enough to get the hell out while the getting was good. I should have left in 2000 when I could have gotten some good scratch for my EFLOP, but I've already (45K) made that loss up since then!
[post="204706"][/post]
Fish,
Honestly, it's getting really old reading your posts bashing my company. Do you really have nothing better to do with your time?
You were fired from United and went to work for a company started by a United scab pilot. Now you feel the need to lash out at your fomer employer.
I really feel sorry for you.
casual rat
Senior
- Aug 25, 2002
- 413
- 3
<_< Maybe a Gay Porn magazine would keep Fish distracted for awhile... 
He certainly 'gets off' on the unusual
He certainly 'gets off' on the unusual
mrfish3726
Veteran
- Jul 7, 2004
- 931
- 0
Hey DAVE,
UniTED SUXXXXXXXXXXXXX's broke fricking airline. It needs to go out of business along with USAIR. Industry would be better off without both airlines PERIOD! HAVE A VERY MERRY X-MAS at UAL HELL!!!! It will probably be your last at that broke a$$ company!!
UniTED SUXXXXXXXXXXXXX's
broke fricking airline. It needs to go out of business along with USAIR. Industry would be better off without both airlines PERIOD! HAVE A VERY MERRY X-MAS at UAL HELL!!!! It will probably be your last at that broke a$$ company!!
WorldTraveler
Corn Field
- Dec 5, 2003
- 21,709
- 10,662
- Banned
- #28
Ukridge,
sorry for the delayed response.
yes, UAL should fight with every ounce within it to restructure itself but business is full of examples of companies that failed to recognize that the ultimate goal is to successfully restructure rather than slashing expenses to the lowest possible level. Do you think the Port Authority of NY and NJ or the Los Angeles airport authority or even the operators of ORD will ever be interested in doing anything for UA after losing hundreds of millions of dollars to them? There is an old saying about winning the battle but losing the war. I do have a pessimistic outlook of United but it is based more on their missteps to date.
I do find it ironic that the United States, which portrays itself as the ultimate bastion of capitalism, is having a much harder time of letting free enterprise work than are the Europeans. Perhaps it says more about the American political process but I do commend the Europeans for thinking and acting on "big picture thoughts" moreso than Americans. I do not advocate rewriting bankruptcy laws solely to knock off a couple of airlines but I do think they need to be rewritten - for both consumers and businesses. Again, Europe has demonstrated far more fiscal responsbility than have the Americans.
But let's not get too teary eyed about European capitalism. After all, your beloved UK is home to the most protectionist aviation policies in the known universe.
sorry for the delayed response.
yes, UAL should fight with every ounce within it to restructure itself but business is full of examples of companies that failed to recognize that the ultimate goal is to successfully restructure rather than slashing expenses to the lowest possible level. Do you think the Port Authority of NY and NJ or the Los Angeles airport authority or even the operators of ORD will ever be interested in doing anything for UA after losing hundreds of millions of dollars to them? There is an old saying about winning the battle but losing the war. I do have a pessimistic outlook of United but it is based more on their missteps to date.
I do find it ironic that the United States, which portrays itself as the ultimate bastion of capitalism, is having a much harder time of letting free enterprise work than are the Europeans. Perhaps it says more about the American political process but I do commend the Europeans for thinking and acting on "big picture thoughts" moreso than Americans. I do not advocate rewriting bankruptcy laws solely to knock off a couple of airlines but I do think they need to be rewritten - for both consumers and businesses. Again, Europe has demonstrated far more fiscal responsbility than have the Americans.
But let's not get too teary eyed about European capitalism. After all, your beloved UK is home to the most protectionist aviation policies in the known universe.
casual rat
Senior
- Aug 25, 2002
- 413
- 3
Fly said:
Feel anything stirring Fish?
This one is missing essentials........she's the girl for you!
[post="204723"][/post]
Fly, you little matchmaker... :mf_boff:
mrfish3726
Veteran
- Jul 7, 2004
- 931
- 0
RAT,
Thats Billy BOB Thornton, not the FISH. Poke fun it doesn't bother ME at all. I don't have anything to worry about in my future! Never been happier in my life! At least I won't stoop to your childish level of trying to degrade people personally. Hey you work for a sucky company, I can't help that. Maybe one day you'll get tired of letting them get in shorts and give it to you OVER and OVER again. But then again, MOST OF YOU LIKE IT I suppose, since you keep bending over for it. Good luck and HAPPY Holidays! Got to get ready for the F9 party at the new Denver Convention Center, it's suppose to be something to see.
Thats Billy BOB Thornton, not the FISH. Poke fun it doesn't bother ME at all. I don't have anything to worry about in my future! Never been happier in my life! At least I won't stoop to your childish level of trying to degrade people personally. Hey you work for a sucky company, I can't help that. Maybe one day you'll get tired of letting them get in shorts and give it to you OVER and OVER again. But then again, MOST OF YOU LIKE IT I suppose, since you keep bending over for it. Good luck and HAPPY Holidays! Got to get ready for the F9 party at the new Denver Convention Center, it's suppose to be something to see.
