Ual 4th Quarter Results
- Thread starter Dizel8
- Start date
johnny gearpin
Member
Zing!!! 
😉
😉So now we lost $819M for the fourth quarter of 2004 instead of $664M. I mean which is it? And we still give Tilton and company a bonus!
This just gets more hilarious with each passing day. I'll bet there are no banks lined up to give Ua financing, if there were, I'll bet they are pulling their approvals. I would just like to know who and what is in control of this sinking ship and do they know what they are doing or are they just buying time lining their pockets.
The flights have been more to capacity lately, if we can't turn a profit for this month of March, then when can we? I'm deeply concerned.
This just gets more hilarious with each passing day. I'll bet there are no banks lined up to give Ua financing, if there were, I'll bet they are pulling their approvals. I would just like to know who and what is in control of this sinking ship and do they know what they are doing or are they just buying time lining their pockets.
The flights have been more to capacity lately, if we can't turn a profit for this month of March, then when can we? I'm deeply concerned.
North by Northwest
Veteran
I hate to say this but it is looking more and more like it all boils down to oil. Chances are we all would have been profitable had we had $28-33.00 PB. Opec sees our pathetic appetite for (the stupidity of) driving SUVs around a city with one person in them. It is a vicious cycle folks... We like to drive big gas guzzling trucks, we must spend billions protecting them so they can charge us $57.00 pb to become BILLIONAIRES.
WorldTraveler
Corn Field
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2003
- Messages
- 21,709
- Reaction score
- 10,662
"The thing that really gets my goat is that management at all the other legacies conveniently ignore the fact that CO has managed to go over 3 years past 9/11 before asking the employees for concessions. CO's management thought the better course of action would be to cut costs everywhere else to the extent possible before asking employees for cuts. What a concept! "
backing up a bit in the posting...
Jim,
DL waited almost as long to get concessions from its employees as CO did....probably too long. However, Ray Neidl said today that he ranks CO as more financially fragile than DL at this point - and behind UA, US, and FlyI. Granted, DL is not in any position to crow but CO or any of the other airlines above have any assets to sell which DL has. When you start burning furniture, you're in bad shape but the heat from that furniture may well keep DL alive and kicking along w/ AA and NW.
The industry shakeout will very likely happen in 2005 unless fuel comes down very quickly (highly unlikely).
And crude prices are going up particularly because the US has allowed the dollar to slide in order to try and stimulate the US economy through exports. Yes, there is alot of irrationality baked into the cost of fuel but given that nothing is really changing in the middle east in the near future, the "war premium" isn't likely to come off anytime soon. IN addition to aggressively drilling for oil in every imaginable place, the US better get real serious about conservation. Unfortunately, all of that stuff takes a long time to work and alot of airlines will be toast before the US stablizes and learns to live with high oil.
backing up a bit in the posting...
Jim,
DL waited almost as long to get concessions from its employees as CO did....probably too long. However, Ray Neidl said today that he ranks CO as more financially fragile than DL at this point - and behind UA, US, and FlyI. Granted, DL is not in any position to crow but CO or any of the other airlines above have any assets to sell which DL has. When you start burning furniture, you're in bad shape but the heat from that furniture may well keep DL alive and kicking along w/ AA and NW.
The industry shakeout will very likely happen in 2005 unless fuel comes down very quickly (highly unlikely).
And crude prices are going up particularly because the US has allowed the dollar to slide in order to try and stimulate the US economy through exports. Yes, there is alot of irrationality baked into the cost of fuel but given that nothing is really changing in the middle east in the near future, the "war premium" isn't likely to come off anytime soon. IN addition to aggressively drilling for oil in every imaginable place, the US better get real serious about conservation. Unfortunately, all of that stuff takes a long time to work and alot of airlines will be toast before the US stablizes and learns to live with high oil.
mrfish3726
Veteran
- Joined
- Jul 7, 2004
- Messages
- 931
- Reaction score
- 0
Yeap WorldTravler,
History always has a way of repeating itself! We are headed for the days of way back when! The days of when only the rich could fly!
History always has a way of repeating itself! We are headed for the days of way back when! The days of when only the rich could fly!
North by Northwest
Veteran
It's kinda sickening really. When you think about all the BILLIONS this stupid group is wasting "Spreadin Freedom" while millions of Americans are facing, and have become UNEMPLOYED! Oil is 50% higher than last year and not ONE peep from that brilliant group in the White House.
Well they could try a rational energy policy. One that forces some fuel standards on SUVs and pickups for one. And they could try and raise the fuel standards on cars. They could lower the speed limits from 65-75 back down to 55-60. They could encourage the creation of MASS Transit inside major metro areas. Things of that nature, that would actually begin to solve the problem, instead of drilling in Alaska, since the oil can't be pumped for another 10-15 years after Congress okay's the idea.
Conservation will play a much larger role in solving this problem than anything else will, short or long term.
As for United and cutting costs, they could try rolling some of the delay plagued hubs like O'Hare and SFO. They could increase fleet utilization times from 10 hours (I think) to about 12, burns extra fuel, but it also would generate extra revenue. Another increasing revenue idea, is to stop nickle and diming passengers. For example, when Blockbuster ended late fees they gave up on an existing $250 million in revenue, but the extra business they generated more than made up for the lost revenue.
Conservation will play a much larger role in solving this problem than anything else will, short or long term.
As for United and cutting costs, they could try rolling some of the delay plagued hubs like O'Hare and SFO. They could increase fleet utilization times from 10 hours (I think) to about 12, burns extra fuel, but it also would generate extra revenue. Another increasing revenue idea, is to stop nickle and diming passengers. For example, when Blockbuster ended late fees they gave up on an existing $250 million in revenue, but the extra business they generated more than made up for the lost revenue.
Blockbuster just reworded the late fees. You now must return the movie within 2 days of the due date or they charge you for the movie! And if you come back with the movie after that time, they charge you a "restocking" fee! Genius!!!! Great marketing for sure. But the only thing that changed is now you buy the movie. So, instead of a $4 or $5 dollar late fee, you buy a $20 movie.
casual rat
Senior
- Joined
- Aug 25, 2002
- Messages
- 413
- Reaction score
- 3
Why would a White House connected heavily to the Oil Industry want to change anything? By participating in a War in Lands that produce a vast amount of The World's oil supply, it's like a subsidy, by crackey!
🙄 Well they could try a rational energy policy.
Try tried one. a balanced attack. the dems said no way
One that forces some fuel standards on SUVs and pickups for one. And they could try and raise the fuel standards on cars.
and we'll all get lighter, more dangerous cars from the mix. nothing like a nanny government telling me what kind of car I can drive. 🙄 Car makers build what people want to buy. you want more fuel efficient cars? BUY THEM.
They could lower the speed limits from 65-75 back down to 55-60.
You obviously live in a Metro area. lowering the speed limit would only increase the speed differential between the slowest and fastest drivers, creating safety issues. And the folks out there trying to make a living driving long haul trucks will surely appreciate you busybodies cutting their productivity by 20% (and therefore taking money from their families).
They could encourage the creation of MASS Transit inside major metro areas
Well Den is getting one, and it was an isue in COS, but hopefully they will increase the number of lanes on the interstate going through the city. Much more fuel can be saved by eliminating the traffic jams. Most cities just are laid out in a fashion that allows the suburban citizens to jumnp on a train to get to work. I'm thinking your silly train burns more fuel with one passenger than my SUV with 7.
Things of that nature, that would actually begin to solve the problem, instead of drilling in Alaska, since the oil can't be pumped for another 10-15 years after Congress okay's the idea.
Due to crazy longhairs who will fight it to the end. Too bad we didn't start 10 years ago huh? 🙄
Now here is how thingss REALLY are.
During the Reagan/Bush I Years, US oil consumption went from 17.062 million barrels a day, to 17.033 million barrels a day
During the Clinton tree hugging days it went from the 17.033 MBD per day to 19.7 MBD. so much for liberal conservation. As a bonus, after a few hefty campaign contributions, Clinton opened the China floodgates, and they saw oil consumption double.
how do we lower oil consumption? the liberal way is to talk alot and force people to suffer.
The conservative way is to encourage rational energy use.
For example. In the late 80's, another idiot liberal, Mario Cuomo, decided he didn't want a nuke plant near New York (he already has one). this plant (Shoreham) had already cost billions and was way over budget due to crazy liberal and green party lawsuits and delays. Once complete, Cuomo tore it down. One of the NY green party candidates even proudly proclaimed how she helped stop the evil nuke plant. what did they replace the nuke energy with? OIL. That's right, they built an oil fired plant in it's place. Ironically, it's in the liberal northeast that people still heat thier homes with fuel oil and in some cases, they get electricity from it.
You want low energy prices? You do what the French did, you change about 80% of your electricity to Nuke power. That's the quickest way to put the middle eastern Mercedes driver back on a Camel.
Try tried one. a balanced attack. the dems said no way
One that forces some fuel standards on SUVs and pickups for one. And they could try and raise the fuel standards on cars.
and we'll all get lighter, more dangerous cars from the mix. nothing like a nanny government telling me what kind of car I can drive. 🙄 Car makers build what people want to buy. you want more fuel efficient cars? BUY THEM.
They could lower the speed limits from 65-75 back down to 55-60.
You obviously live in a Metro area. lowering the speed limit would only increase the speed differential between the slowest and fastest drivers, creating safety issues. And the folks out there trying to make a living driving long haul trucks will surely appreciate you busybodies cutting their productivity by 20% (and therefore taking money from their families).
They could encourage the creation of MASS Transit inside major metro areas
Well Den is getting one, and it was an isue in COS, but hopefully they will increase the number of lanes on the interstate going through the city. Much more fuel can be saved by eliminating the traffic jams. Most cities just are laid out in a fashion that allows the suburban citizens to jumnp on a train to get to work. I'm thinking your silly train burns more fuel with one passenger than my SUV with 7.
Things of that nature, that would actually begin to solve the problem, instead of drilling in Alaska, since the oil can't be pumped for another 10-15 years after Congress okay's the idea.
Due to crazy longhairs who will fight it to the end. Too bad we didn't start 10 years ago huh? 🙄
Now here is how thingss REALLY are.
During the Reagan/Bush I Years, US oil consumption went from 17.062 million barrels a day, to 17.033 million barrels a day
During the Clinton tree hugging days it went from the 17.033 MBD per day to 19.7 MBD. so much for liberal conservation. As a bonus, after a few hefty campaign contributions, Clinton opened the China floodgates, and they saw oil consumption double.
how do we lower oil consumption? the liberal way is to talk alot and force people to suffer.
The conservative way is to encourage rational energy use.
For example. In the late 80's, another idiot liberal, Mario Cuomo, decided he didn't want a nuke plant near New York (he already has one). this plant (Shoreham) had already cost billions and was way over budget due to crazy liberal and green party lawsuits and delays. Once complete, Cuomo tore it down. One of the NY green party candidates even proudly proclaimed how she helped stop the evil nuke plant. what did they replace the nuke energy with? OIL. That's right, they built an oil fired plant in it's place. Ironically, it's in the liberal northeast that people still heat thier homes with fuel oil and in some cases, they get electricity from it.
You want low energy prices? You do what the French did, you change about 80% of your electricity to Nuke power. That's the quickest way to put the middle eastern Mercedes driver back on a Camel.
casual rat said:
So let me get this straight, opening up an area that will increase U.S. supply (thereby LOWERING the price of oil) is hooking up the oil industry? The provisions in the Bush energy plan that encouraged more Nuke power helps the oil industry how? As stated above, I'd argue the party that helped the "rich oil companies" the most, is the one that saw oil use go up the most while at the helm. the party that supports expensive oil is the one that tries to prevent any additions to supply. the party that helps 'Big Oil' is the one that prevents more refinery capacity, limiting supply of finished product. The party that helps 'big oil" is the one that tries to stop any efforts to move away from fossil fuels to other energy sources that actually work, and do so economically. Nothing like the deep thoughts of Randi Rhodes 🙄
casual rat
Senior
- Joined
- Aug 25, 2002
- Messages
- 413
- Reaction score
- 3
Bus,
I don't have a problem with developing Nuke power at all, or any other alternative sources for that matter. I'm sure our lame duck president is doing 'all he can' to minimize the record oil prices that we now enjoy. Uh, maybe the reason consumption increased during the Willie Clinton years, was due to the fact that oil was cheap, and consumers made purchase decisions based upon that. In the short term sense, however; please tell me how a war in the Persian Gulf is making oil any less expensive? Nothing like the deep thoughts of Gomer Pyle. 🙄
I don't have a problem with developing Nuke power at all, or any other alternative sources for that matter. I'm sure our lame duck president is doing 'all he can' to minimize the record oil prices that we now enjoy. Uh, maybe the reason consumption increased during the Willie Clinton years, was due to the fact that oil was cheap, and consumers made purchase decisions based upon that. In the short term sense, however; please tell me how a war in the Persian Gulf is making oil any less expensive? Nothing like the deep thoughts of Gomer Pyle. 🙄
