Jacobin777
Senior
WorldTraveler said:Jacobin,
Glad to shine the light on yet one more aspect of this merger.
We can debate about market size and strength or what labor will get or not get out of this merger, but above everything, no one should doubt that this merger is about one thing: a relative small but powerful group of people doing all they can to maximize their ability to recover their loans to AA and US.
US has repaid very little of the debt it came out of BK with. They have figured out how to run a very profitable airline but they are still deeply indebted and the debt repayments in 2014 represent obligations that have just been kicked down the road.
Those debts due in 2014 will be refinanced but they will be part of the new AA’s debt structure.
AMR has not “lost” much debt in BK either. They were heavily in debt going into BK and will be coming out as well.
Add on that new AA is engaging in an aggressive fleet renewal plan that will add debt far faster than it can be paid down, they will have pension obligations to pay that they didn’t plan on paying going into BK, and the merger itself will cost hundreds of millions of dollars, and the line of people looking for money from new AA is and will be very long.
New AA will be a deeply indebted company but the consolation is that UA is too. It is all the more frightening from a banker’s point of view that UA’s costs are the highest in the industry followed by AA’s – and new AA won’t move in that relative ranking. AA and UA are both competitive targets not only because their costs make it easy for competitors to win in the marketplace.
In contrast, AS, B6, DL, and WN all have lower costs AND lower debt levels and each is managing their business to not only limit additional debt but pay down what they already have. AA and UA are vulnerable financially to companies that can win in the marketplace and in the finance markets.
The bankers and finance people who are trying to maximize their own recovery from AA and US know full well that they might get what they want or be creating the best company with respect to the capacity to repay debt. But they are pragmatic enough to support what maximizes the possibility of debt repayment and no one should have any doubt that the merger is first and foremost about maximizing recovery for AA and US’ lenders.
Its not the debt itself which is problematic, its debt service which is the most important. If AA doesn't have a problem servicing its debt then it won't be a problem. For the blockbuster deal AA got with Boeing/Airbus (oh yah, courtesy of Tom Horton), they got incredible financing deals.
If Parker & Co. can't deliver on their promises, then servicing the debt might become a problem.
737823 said:AA had a cost problem but has nearly completed a successful reorganization through chapter 11 to bring costs in line.
US on other hand HAS a revenue problem, largely a product of the markets they serve that are generally produce lower revenues (and lucrative premium O&D traffic) than AA's hubs, ie MIA.
US is profitable under a low revenue and low cost model. Put another way, 72% of the equity in the combined carrier is for legacy AA, remaining 28% for US. So at a time when AA is in the toilet, it is worth nearly 3x that of US at a (near) record high market capitalization.
Again I think all the proponents of this merger will quickly realize in 12-18 months what a disaster it is and the so called "synergies" will not materialize, certainly at the level DP and his team have been touting.
Josh
+1.
700UW said:
Learn to read the posts.
Learn to post properly. You didn't cite anyone.
700UW said:Guess you havent seen US has been making record profits.
And AA is the #3 Airline in the US, and US Airways is #5, compare apples to apples not oranges.
And US has been out of bankruptcy for over eight years, cant say the same about AA, now can you?
Guess you haven't seen that US is making record profits by having industry-lagging pay. Why did Parker & Co. promise "instant pay raise" for US employees?