Survival Of The "un" Fittest. Forbes.com

Wretched Wrench

Veteran
Apr 21, 2003
1,626
12
Bankruptcy has changed from a tool used to dissolve businesses to one that helps resurrect them--at the cost of everyone but the executives


SURVIVAL OF THE "UN" FITTEST

Richard Lehmann, Distressed Debt Securities, 09.08.04, 2:55 PM ET

NEW YORK - What happens to the losers in a competitive business environment? Those that have no debt close up shop and go home. Those that do, file for bankruptcy. The historical intent of bankruptcy law was to provide a mechanism for the orderly dissolution of a business--an intent still observed in many countries today.


In the United States, however, things are different. The bankruptcy process is principally a tool for business reorganization, social engineering and off-loading problems that could not be resolved by other means. Very few large corporate bankruptcies today result in a liquidation of the business. Instead, these companies insulate themselves from existing creditors by obtaining a new line of credit called a DIP (Debtor In Possession) loan that is senior to all existing loans, and then proceed to continue operations as before, albeit with a judge's blessing. Never mind that the current management may be inept, this is America, the land of second (even third) chances. Besides, winding up the business would mean job losses, something most judges have a hard time endorsing. Hence, we have companies kept alive because they employ so many people, even though their bankruptcy protection jeopardizes the survival of the remaining players in an industry. Look at the airlines.


The most revolutionary change in the bankruptcy process has been the use of the courts to off-load problems that cannot be solved otherwise. Recent examples include freezing punitive damage awards or addressing class action issues, such as asbestos litigation. The latest ploy is the off-loading of unfunded pension liabilities. This was first done by the steel industry and is now catching on for airlines.

United Airlines (nyse: UAL - news - people ), currently in bankruptcy, recently announced that it would skip pension benefit payments. The expectation is that the Pension Benefit Guarantee Fund would pick up the liability. The rule is that if the company can prove that its existence is threatened by its pension obligations, it can walk away from them and give them to the government. This is essentially taking government money and giving it to United's creditors. However, this is not as bad as it may seem. The bail out also benefits creditors by enhancing their return (as the new shareholders) and makes them more willing to throw good money after bad. Workers benefit because they keep their jobs and pensions. The government takes on a liability in the beginning, but ensures future revenue from collected taxes from the surviving business, assuming an airline can ever put together two or more profitable years.

Those companies that learn from their failures and get a fresh start are usually winners. The number of companies going through bankruptcy more than once is small. And then some, like Donald Trump, seem to consider it a normal business option. However, there must be times when a company, even a big one, should be liquidated. As with the airlines, some participants should be removed because there's not enough business to keep everyone alive and profitable. The resources invested in that company won't disappear but will be distributed among competitors. This is what's expected to happen in the telecom industry and may be the answer for airlines as well. In the case of United Airlines, the total capacity of the U.S. airline industry will be better allocated if there are fewer competitors. As for United's employees, other airlines taking up the slack will need experienced workers.

Keeping failed companies going only serves to increase the financial stress on companies not in bankruptcy. In a competitive industry, one bankruptcy can cause additional bankruptcies. Those carriers who have entered bankruptcy and emerge with better union contracts, lower debt, new equity and an overall lower cost of doing business will surely be a tougher competitor against other airlines. Healthy airlines, which are still in business because of superior management, will suffer when a post-bankrupt company with a clean balance sheet competes against them. The healthy company will have to match fares to stay competitive. The problem only compounds if a second airline files, so what ensues is a domino effect taking out the whole of the industry.

There are examples of whole industries going bankrupt because of competitive pressures. The movie-theater industry went bankrupt en masse within a short time period. Today we see Ford Motor (nyse: F - news - people ) and General Motors (nyse: GM - news - people ) trying to stay competitive against foreign suppliers while choking on their pension costs. Unless an alternative solution can be found, the point may well be reached when they see bankruptcy the same way as Donald Trump.


Forbes.com article
 
"As for United's employees, other airlines taking up the slack will need experienced workers. "

That proves the author doesn't know the airline business too well.
 
Fly said:
"As for United's employees, other airlines taking up the slack will need experienced workers. "

That proves the author doesn't know the airline business too well.
[post="177888"][/post]​

You got that right Fly, experience don't mean squat in this buisness.
 
This reads like the writer had nothing better to do that day. There are a lot of bankruptcy success stories, where the system worked to the benefit of everyone involved that the writer obviously chose to discount.
 
Fly said:
"As for United's employees, other airlines taking up the slack will need experienced workers. "

That proves the author doesn't know the airline business too well.
[post="177888"][/post]​

Fly,

You are reading that out of context:

However, there must be times when a company, even a big one, should be liquidated. As with the airlines, some participants should be removed because there's not enough business to keep everyone alive and profitable. The resources invested in that company won't disappear but will be distributed among competitors. This is what's expected to happen in the telecom industry and may be the answer for airlines as well. In the case of United Airlines, the total capacity of the U.S. airline industry will be better allocated if there are fewer competitors. As for United's employees, other airlines taking up the slack will need experienced workers.

The writer is reflecting about the aftereffects of United's liquidation, which he is advocating, should that happen.
 
It's a fair statement, once you get past the pilots and flight attendants.

I know we've had to hire agents and clerks off the street in a number of locations during the past two years, simply because people on the recall lists passed up those vacancies. I can't blame them -- moving to EWR or PHL isn't an option for many people, myself included.

When looking at job apps, someone with previous airline experience usually floats to the top of the list. Back in the early 90's, I had at least a dozen "new hires" from Eastern on my ticket counter when I was at JFK. God only knows how many we have down in MIA, and that even includes pilots and flight attendants.
 
What alot of people outside the industry fails to understand is that we in the airline industry start out at such ridiculously low wages and we scrape and struggle to make ends meet. Once we finally get to a point where we can make a decent living and have a quality of life, boom the carpet is pulled out from under us.

Yes we have the experience and ability to start all over again, but it is hard to move back to below poverty wages and make the climb back to the top again. Many of us have done that and can attest that it is very frustrating. Most outsiders fail to understand that airline rates of pay are the same in most cases regardless of the location and cost of living.

I am off my soap box now.
 
Thats a great point. Most people do not understand that airline employees start out at 1/2 or less of the going rate on the pay scale. Then work up to 14 or more years to reach pairity.
 
FA Mikey said:
Thats a great point. Most people do not understand that airline employees start out at 1/2 or less of the going rate on the pay scale. Then work up to 14 or more years to reach pairity.
[post="178052"][/post]​
<_< Milky--- What you fail to realize is the Author, or thoese outside the Industry have no idea what it takes to run an Airline, and really don't care!!! All's they want to know is how cheap it is to go where they want to, and back!! End of story! And if it means the Employees have to substatize that cheap fair, so be it!!!! The only answeer to this unpopular! So sore of Re-regulation, before the whole Industry Emplodes!!!
 
FLY,

In the case of United Airlines, the total capacity of the U.S. airline industry will be better allocated if there are fewer competitors. As for United's employees, other airlines taking up the slack will need experienced workers.

Keeping failed companies going only serves to increase the financial stress on companies not in bankruptcy.

Point he is making is that the industry as a whole would do much better without UAL or USAIR. Get rid of excess capacity all the healthy players make out period!
 
mrfish3726 said:
FLY,

In the case of United Airlines, the total capacity of the U.S. airline industry will be better allocated if there are fewer competitors. As for United's employees, other airlines taking up the slack will need experienced workers.

Keeping failed companies going only serves to increase the financial stress on companies not in bankruptcy.

Point he is making is that the industry as a whole would do much better without UAL or USAIR. Get rid of excess capacity all the healthy players make out period!
[post="178230"][/post]​
<_< mrfish-----It has been noted that the shark can barely see beyond the end of his nose!!!!If United, Usair, Delta, etc. went out of business, they would only be replaced by new, cheap, upstart airlines, selling even cheaper seats, putting futher pressure on older a.a., Northwest, Continental, and yes, even Southwest, starting the cycle all over again!! :down:
 
Agreed. The problem isn't excess capacity; load factors are at 80% and above for everybody. The problem is to provide the seats at the price demanded by the public.

MK
 
kirkpatrick said:
Agreed. The problem isn't excess capacity; load factors are at 80% and above for everybody. The problem is to provide the seats at the price demanded by the public.

MK
[post="178263"][/post]​
<_< Kirk---- A lot of what you're saying is true! But!!! Can the public expect to get those cheap seats at the expence of the Airline Employee???? If the answeer is "YES", then this industry is in deep trouble! A large portion of the experianced employees today will be retiring soon! The military isn't turning out replacements for them, even with the war in Iraq! There are a number of layed off peole out there now, but as time go'es by, less, and less, because they're finding work in other industries! With poor pay, and no future, schools will soon dry up! presant jobs will attract a poor quality workers! Work standards will drop! You get the picture!!! :down:
 
kirkpatrick said:
Agreed. The problem isn't excess capacity; load factors are at 80% and above for everybody. The problem is to provide the seats at the price demanded by the public.

MK
[post="178263"][/post]​

I respectfully disagree.

One big reason that seats are so cheap is that too many seats are out there and consumers are able to bid down the price of seats. Lotsa capacity = cheap price.

Econ 101.

The industry would be better off if some of the low-end could just be left at home. But too many seats drives down fares to ridiculously low levels and everyone starves.
 
FWAAA said:
I respectfully disagree.

One big reason that seats are so cheap is that too many seats are out there and consumers are able to bid down the price of seats. Lotsa capacity = cheap price.

Econ 101.

Airline seats are different from a commodity like oil, where a cartel can put out just enough oil for sale to command the price they want. If we raise prices someone else will offer those seats for less.

If a biggie like UA goes under there might be price hikes in a few monopoly or near monopoly markets, but in a year we'd be right back where we are now.

MK
 

Latest posts

Back
Top