The Future Of Ual?

[avek00]

Or was it just to unnecessarily rile people up for your own personal amusement...

He knows nothing about UA's business plan, our pension issues, or our employee culture. I think he gets most of his info from Chip and USAToday.

767jetz B)

1. I'm not the one who will parody UA's new slogan - HISTORY will do so if things don't start changing soon at the airline.

2. I am familiar with the pension issues that United faces (along with the ~300-page Joke of the Year 2003 aka the McKinsey Transformation Plan and yes, even the steadily improving but still out-of-touch UA employee culture) - frankly, its pathetic that United's only hope for continued survival is an act of Congress and the White House (pensions) coupled with the blessing of an ever impatient and sober ATSB (emergence funding). UAWHQ has put out alot of rhetoric about changes at United, but the sorry truth remains - United has done little to transform itself into a viable post-bankruptcy enterprise, and continues to rely upon Uncle Sam for some type of ill-deserved "salvation".

But hey, don't take my word for it. You saw for yourself that Wall Street shares my views - if the future was so rosy, then United should have garnered far more than the sub-$500 million that the bankers offered in non-ATSB unsecured funds to allow UAL to emerge from bankruptcy. Wall Street won't even throw a nickel at United without someone else guaranteeing the loan - what does THAT say about the company's future?

 

[767jetz]

HISTORY will do so if things don't start changing soon at the airline.

Hey kid,

Thanks for your 2 cents. Now don't you have some homework to do?

Thanks for playing... Bye, bye.

 

[avek00]

HISTORY will do so if things don't start changing soon at the airline.

Hey kid,

Thanks for your 2 cents. Now don't you have some homework to do?

Thanks for playing... Bye, bye.

It's sad that your're unwilling to enagage in an intellectual discussion, preferring instead to launch ad hominem attacks that do not contribute anything to this forum.

 

[Bear96]

1. I'm not the one who will parody UA's new slogan - HISTORY will do so if things don't start changing soon at the airline.

Correction... you ARE the one parodying UA's new slogan.

If you are right in your predictions (and frankly, I agree with your points and predictions more often than I disgree), then let history be the judge. All in due time.

Much is taken away from your message when you default to childishness. Make your points in an objective manner and you might be more convincing. Trying to be clever when all it does is insult people-- and worse, when you KNOW it will insult people-- only harms your credibility, and brings only similarly childish responses in return.

But again, maybe that is what you really want, instead of encouraging an actual intelligent debate. Only you know your true motives.

 

[UAL_TECH]

But here's where we differ:
QUOTE (UAL_TECH @ Feb 29 2004, 10:20 PM)
BS Degreed Computer Programmers – In-sourced thanks to the H1B Visa program, the rest is Outsourced!!!
BS, BSEE and MS, MSEE Degreed Electronic Engineers – In-sourced thanks to the H1B Visa program, the rest is Outsourced!!!
In-sourced thanks to H1B Visas? Excuse me? Are you implying that people in the US on H1Bs are being paid less than the rest of us? They're doing the same work for the same pay.

Yes, not only am I ‘implying’ but I am making a ‘bold ass statement’!
Furthermore, the H1B’s that did lose their positions in the Bay Area are ‘still here’!!!
(Next time you visit SFO, get you butt in a cab going to San Jose, get back to me.)

In any case, they're all being outsourced because labor in this country simply costs too much. The advent of low-cost, fast transportation has made manufacturing overseas more feasible. The advent of low-cost, instant global communication has made development of intellectual property and telephone-based services much less expensive to produce and provide overseas.

So, what are you saying? On one side of your mouth you ‘imply’ that the H1B’s are making the same and from the ‘other side’ of your mouth you justify their position due to American Labor costs?

‘PICK ONE!’

The upshot? The time of the United States having a standard of living orders of magnitude above much of the rest of the world is coming to an end. Ultimately, the world will necessarily become more economically homogeneous, and there's little that can reasonably be done about it.

This is ‘your’ upshot?
‘HELLO!!!’ am I the only one reading this Thread ???

Where the United States will continue to lead is in the creation of intellectual property, but that is mostly a cultural phenomenon.

So now we are shifting from manufacturing, to service, now to ‘intellectual’ property.
What a line of crap!


:down: UT

mweiss,

Thanks for your 'non-reply'.
If your are unwilling and/or unable to discuss you posts, then why make the effort?

UT

 

[MrMarky]

I think I'll give Avek the benefit of the doubt and attribute that last line of his from his March 3 post to the fact that he posted it at 358AM.

BTW Avek, UA like TW before them, has done a spectacular job of improving mainline service. All my long-time UA FF friends have commented universally on how much UA has improved. I tend to agree with your skepticism regarding Ted, we shall see. Since they've been down this path once before with Shuttle, one would hope they're basing their faith on experience, even though Shuttle fizzled.

The dependence on ATSB guarantees in order to secure exit financing is troublesome. Especially after all the concessions they've gotten from employees and suppliers. I would not want to be a non-Texas based carrier depending upon the Bush administration for my salvation.

According to a story the other day in the SF Chronicle, which discussed pending difficulty with the ATSB loan guarantees and the opposition of the LCC's association, Brace was quoted as saying they will secure exit financing one way or the other.

Let's hope he has some viable alternatives that won't saddle the company with the kind of high-risk debt that TW was burdened with, which in turn made recovery even more difficult.

Good to hear from you, Avek.

Marky

 

[iflyjetz]

But hey, don't take my word for it. You saw for yourself that Wall Street shares my views - if the future was so rosy, then United should have garnered far more than the sub-$500 million that the bankers offered in non-ATSB unsecured funds to allow UAL to emerge from bankruptcy.

Source? Link? Thanks.

 

[CTFlyer]

Just think of avek00 as Chip's little brother.

He only comes around once in a while to try and stir the pot.

He knows nothing about UA's business plan, our pension issues, or our employee culture. I think he gets most of his info from Chip and USAToday.

767jetz B)

767, I'm afraid that avek00 is here to stay for a little while. He was essentially banned from flyertalk.com because of his constant, peurile, immature postings, and doesn't have anyother place to go.

Much of those postings had to do with how UAL and AA sucked. According to him, CO is the great example everybody should follow....

BTW, avek00 celebrated the news of UA's CH11 filing with a bottle of champagne, and also predicted that UA will file Ch7 in 2003 (he's obviously upset that its not come true....)

A search on flyertalk - espp the UA forum will illustrate the boy wonder's grasp on "reality"....

 

[atabuy]

I think we have more than the future of Ual to consider when we are loosing so many jobs overseas.

With the baby boomers starting to retire they already know there isn't enough money to cover social security for them, and to compound the problem, lost jobs and lower wages will not support all the people eligiible to receive SS.

Someone is selling us short and I do beleive it is big business and politicians.

We need a new man in the Whitehouse.

The problemm is we never really have a good choice of who to pick.

Doing the right thing and politics can be at opposite ends of the picture sometimes.

 

[767jetz]

Someone is selling us short and I do beleive it is big business and politicians.

We need a new man in the Whitehouse.

The problemm is we never really have a good choice of who to pick.

Doing the right thing and politics can be at opposite ends of the picture sometimes.

I agree 100%! Well said!

 

[46Driver]

To play Devil's Advocate, how do you stop jobs from going overseas??? If IBM can get a computer programmer in India to do the same job for $10k a year that someone in Silicon Valley does for $100k a year, sooner or later, IBM will not be competitive with other companies overseas.

As George Will was saying the other day, take the candy industry. The sugar farmers received a tariff to protect them from cheap sugar overseas - it ended up with the candy companies moving overseas because the price of raw material (in this case sugar) was so much cheaper - the companies were unable to compete on a world stage due to high US prices on raw materials as well as labor. The sugar farmer's job was saved - temporarily - at the expense of those worked in the candy factory. Same model holds true to an extent with tariffs on steel and what happened to the auto industry.

I don't have all the answers but to simply say protectionism is not quite it. Maybe a level playing field would help but the economy is now global. Adapt or die.

 

[bigbusdrvr]

I think I'll give Avek the benefit of the doubt and attribute that last line of his from his March 3 post to the fact that he posted it at 358AM.

BTW Avek, UA like TW before them, has done a spectacular job of improving mainline service. All my long-time UA FF friends have commented universally on how much UA has improved. I tend to agree with your skepticism regarding Ted, we shall see. Since they've been down this path once before with Shuttle, one would hope they're basing their faith on experience, even though Shuttle fizzled.

The dependence on ATSB guarantees in order to secure exit financing is troublesome. Especially after all the concessions they've gotten from employees and suppliers. I would not want to be a non-Texas based carrier depending upon the Bush administration for my salvation.

According to a story the other day in the SF Chronicle, which discussed pending difficulty with the ATSB loan guarantees and the opposition of the LCC's association, Brace was quoted as saying they will secure exit financing one way or the other.

Let's hope he has some viable alternatives that won't saddle the company with the kind of high-risk debt that TW was burdened with, which in turn made recovery even more difficult.

Good to hear from you, Avek.

Marky

I think I know where the exit financing will come from........


can you sing "SWEET HOME ALABAMA"...............

 

[avek00]

I think I'll give Avek the benefit of the doubt and attribute that last line of his from his March 3 post to the fact that he posted it at 358AM.

BTW Avek, UA like TW before them, has done a spectacular job of improving mainline service. All my long-time UA FF friends have commented universally on how much UA has improved. I tend to agree with your skepticism regarding Ted, we shall see. Since they've been down this path once before with Shuttle, one would hope they're basing their faith on experience, even though Shuttle fizzled.

The dependence on ATSB guarantees in order to secure exit financing is troublesome. Especially after all the concessions they've gotten from employees and suppliers. I would not want to be a non-Texas based carrier depending upon the Bush administration for my salvation.

According to a story the other day in the SF Chronicle, which discussed pending difficulty with the ATSB loan guarantees and the opposition of the LCC's association, Brace was quoted as saying they will secure exit financing one way or the other.

Let's hope he has some viable alternatives that won't saddle the company with the kind of high-risk debt that TW was burdened with, which in turn made recovery even more difficult.

Good to hear from you, Avek.

Marky

MrMarky:

I just flew UA this past Friday ATL-ORD-LAX in F to connect to SQ as part of a UA *A award. I agree 100% that UA's service has greatly improved as of late. Unfortunately, as we witnessed with TWA, offering all the service in the world doesn't amount to squat if your financials don't undergo a similarly dramatic recovery. At the end of the day, the banks won't give United so much as a $500 million loan on an unsecured basis; the fact that they are demanding Uncle Sam to "cosign" for most of the emergence money means that they do NOT have significant confidence in United's ability to function as a viable enterprise once the BK protection goes away.

 

[kcabpilot]

"adapt or die"

That's a good one, how do we do that? How do you compete against labor getting paid a few dollars a day? How do you convince corporations that it's not good to move their factories to Mexico or China where they can increase profits by dumping their toxic wastes in the creek out back?

I say corporations should be chartered. They should be held to a rigid standard that would include being good to the environment, their employees and the community and providing a good product. Those charters would have to be continuously renewed by review of performance. Don't want to abide by those rules? Fine, then this wealthy American market is no longer available to you, sell your product to the Chinese that you are exploiting.

It will never happen because our government IS big business. George Bush is a CEO's wet dream.

 

[iflyjetz]

At the end of the day, the banks won't give United so much as a $500 million loan on an unsecured basis; the fact that they are demanding Uncle Sam to "cosign" for most of the emergence money means that they do NOT have significant confidence in United's ability to function as a viable enterprise once the BK protection goes away.

AGAIN, source? Link?
Rumor is that JPM and C are willing to loan up to $2 B apiece, with or without the ATSB guarantee.