United to be split up.

[gaucho99]

If UAL keeps bleeding like this they might have to consider selling off a portion of the airline. $550 million dollar operating loss is obscene especially in the light of AMR's loss of $300 million; they pay there employees more and have a significantly older fleet.

Would someone please shame Glenn Tilton out of the executive suite for the sake of my friends who still work for UAL?!

Actually, the operating loss was much smaller than the $550 million 1st qtr loss. I think it was less than $100 million. Part of the $550 million dollar loss was the lump sum paid to stockholders...$250 million??? Plus some other charges. So I think UA's performance has been in line with other carriers who have already reported.

 

[dariencc]

Actually, the operating loss was much smaller than the $550 million 1st qtr loss. I think it was less than $100 million. Part of the $550 million dollar loss was the lump sum paid to stockholders...$250 million??? Plus some other charges. So I think UA's performance has been in line with other carriers who have already reported.

In line with other carriers who have already reported? I guess that's why the stock tanked 36% in one day. :blink:

 

[flyhigh]

gaucho99,

That's the problem...it wasn't much less (see below). The operating loss was over $400 million. Maybe I'm mis-understanding your post but it seems UA's loss was far worse than can be explained simply through fuel and the investment community is showing that. While AMR lost a lot by any standard, the reaction was far less brutal.

UAL CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARY COMPANIES
STATEMENTS OF CONSOLIDATED OPERATIONS (UNAUDITED)
(In millions, except per share amounts)


Three Months Ended %
March 31, Increase/
(In accordance with GAAP) 2008 2007 (Decrease)
Operating revenues:
Passenger - United Airlines $3,545 $3,264 8.6
Passenger - Regional Affiliates 715 675 5.9
Cargo 218 168 29.8
Other operating revenues 233 266 (12.4)
4,711 4,373 7.7
Operating expenses:
Aircraft fuel 1,575 1,041 51.3
Salaries and related costs 1,046 1,068 (2.1)
Regional affiliates (a) 779 692 12.6
Purchased services 349 301 15.9
Aircraft maintenance materials
and outside repairs 317 281 12.8
Landing fees and other rent 230 238 (3.4)
Depreciation and amortization 220 220 -
Distribution expenses 184 188 (2.1)
Aircraft rent 99 100 (1.0)
Cost of third party sales 64 93 (31.2)
Special operating items (Note 3) - (22) (100.0)
Other operating expenses 289 265 9.1
5,152 4,465 15.4

Loss from operations (441) (92) 379.3

 

[700UW]

They don't seem to have a problem with them at DFW.

AA did not buy DL's gates when DL pulled down DFW, and you have WN at DAL to compete also.

 

[FWAAA]

Actually, the operating loss was much smaller than the $550 million 1st qtr loss. I think it was less than $100 million. Part of the $550 million dollar loss was the lump sum paid to stockholders...$250 million??? Plus some other charges. So I think UA's performance has been in line with other carriers who have already reported.

Your post quoted above is almost completely incorrect. Here's the UAL press release so you can review the actual numbers:

http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/080422/aqtu012.html?.v=48

UA suffered an operating loss of $441 million and a negative cash flow from operations of $80 million. The total net loss was $537 million.

The $250 million distribution to shareholders didn't affect these numbers at all. Distributions like those don't impact profit or loss.

AMR reported positive cash flow from operations of $449 million. That's $529 million better than UA showed in the first quarter.

The numbers don't confirm that UA's performance was "in line" with other carriers. It was far worse.

 

[novaqt]

Interesting comment. :down: What about pre-NAFTA? That would be the FTA between Canada and USA. Were the airlines managed superiorly? What about airline management pre-FTA? Even more superior? Do you even have a clue what NAFTA is? Do you even know what is written in NAFTA with regards to MEX-USA-CDN aviation markets? Or are you just regurgitating what you hear from unionistas or Democratic presdiential candidate speeches?

Frugal,

I'm glad you are so up-to-date on cause and effects of NAFTA. Since you have only done a 180 view of NAFTA, below is a website that will provide you with the other 180 view from the other side. You will see that the Congressmen who voted in favor of NAFTA never read the document in its entirety. If they had, it would not have passed in the form that was voted on. As you will see, NAFTA has bombed on its original promise of providing a higher standard of living in US-MEXICO-CANADA. It has allowed outsourcing of our jobs and United Airlines is a big participant. The unions aren't the only employees that have been affected, nonunion jobs have also been outsourced. NAFTA has affected food safety and medicines imported to the USA. Those who have worked for 20+ years, and then their jobs were outsourced, have seen their retirements either completely disappear or severely reduced and dumped on the federal government at diminished returns and now companies want to dump retirees supplemental health insurance altogether. If you check the link below, you will see that NAFTA has been a boon to offshore investments thus being able to circumvent US regulations. Check out Dubai in United Arab Emirites. Dubai is becoming a huge financial and corporate center in the global world we live in. Haliburton has already moved to Dubai and other US corporations (banksing) are also moving there. Dubai has mushroomed into an Emerald City of OZ since 2005 when it began construction and rising from the desert. NAFTA was a pie-in-the-sky solution for Wall Street investments. Corporate profits certainly enriched corporate CEO's who are laughing all the way to the bank. If you look closely, you will see the subprime real estate mess. Oh, as another side-effect, the US dollar has crashed against the Euro. That is why fuel prices have soared. Believe it or not, there are foreign countries who want to destroy the USA as a superpower and they are now in control of the money. So, Frugal, defend NAFTA if you like, it has not accomplished what was promised to the American people. On the contrary, just the opposite has happened.

http://www.citizen.org/trade/nafta/

 

[ual777fan]

Your post quoted above is almost completely incorrect. Here's the UAL press release so you can review the actual numbers:

http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/080422/aqtu012.html?.v=48

UA suffered an operating loss of $441 million and a negative cash flow from operations of $80 million. The total net loss was $537 million.

The $250 million distribution to shareholders didn't affect these numbers at all. Distributions like those don't impact profit or loss.

AMR reported positive cash flow from operations of $449 million. That's $529 million better than UA showed in the first quarter.

The numbers don't confirm that UA's performance was "in line" with other carriers. It was far worse.

I'm still at a loss as to how UA could have reported numbers that were so much worse than AA, CO, and DL. It just doesn't make any sense.

 

[nostradamus]

I'm still at a loss as to how UA could have reported numbers that were so much worse than AA, CO, and DL. It just doesn't make any sense.

When you are talking to the financial community, you put lipstick on your pig. When you are trying to consolidate and want the regulators to approve a merger type transaction, you take the lipstick off of the pig.

 

[local 12 proud]

Frugal,

I'm glad you are so up-to-date on cause and effects of NAFTA. Since you have only done a 180 view of NAFTA, below is a website that will provide you with the other 180 view from the other side. You will see that the Congressmen who voted in favor of NAFTA never read the document in its entirety. If they had, it would not have passed in the form that was voted on. As you will see, NAFTA has bombed on its original promise of providing a higher standard of living in US-MEXICO-CANADA. It has allowed outsourcing of our jobs and United Airlines is a big participant. The unions aren't the only employees that have been affected, nonunion jobs have also been outsourced. NAFTA has affected food safety and medicines imported to the USA. Those who have worked for 20+ years, and then their jobs were outsourced, have seen their retirements either completely disappear or severely reduced and dumped on the federal government at diminished returns and now companies want to dump retirees supplemental health insurance altogether. If you check the link below, you will see that NAFTA has been a boon to offshore investments thus being able to circumvent US regulations. Check out Dubai in United Arab Emirites. Dubai is becoming a huge financial and corporate center in the global world we live in. Haliburton has already moved to Dubai and other US corporations (banksing) are also moving there. Dubai has mushroomed into an Emerald City of OZ since 2005 when it began construction and rising from the desert. NAFTA was a pie-in-the-sky solution for Wall Street investments. Corporate profits certainly enriched corporate CEO's who are laughing all the way to the bank. If you look closely, you will see the subprime real estate mess. Oh, as another side-effect, the US dollar has crashed against the Euro. That is why fuel prices have soared. Believe it or not, there are foreign countries who want to destroy the USA as a superpower and they are now in control of the money. So, Frugal, defend NAFTA if you like, it has not accomplished what was promised to the American people. On the contrary, just the opposite has happened.

http://www.citizen.org/trade/nafta/

...And who was it that signed NAFTA in again?

 

[FrugalFlyerv2.0]

Frugal,

I'm glad you are so up-to-date on cause and effects of NAFTA. Since you have only done a 180 view of NAFTA, below is a website that will provide you with the other 180 view from the other side.

You should do a little research about who/what the Public Citizen Foundation is and the people behind it as well as their agenda before you start buying what they're selling.

You will see that the Congressmen who voted in favor of NAFTA never read the document in its entirety. If they had, it would not have passed in the form that was voted on.

Really? Congressmen are admiting they're that dumb? It couldn't be pandering to a certain group of voters now could it? BTW - before NAFTA, there was FTA. FTA was negotiated for almost ~3 (or 4 years), they knew very well what was being negotiated. To tell you otherwise is BS. It has been a while since I've looked at FTA, but NAFTA is basically FTA with Mexico attached to it.

As you will see, NAFTA has bombed on its original promise of providing a higher standard of living in US-MEXICO-CANADA. It has allowed outsourcing of our jobs and United Airlines is a big participant. The unions aren't the only employees that have been affected, nonunion jobs have also been outsourced. NAFTA has affected food safety and medicines imported to the USA. Those who have worked for 20+ years, and then their jobs were outsourced, have seen their retirements either completely disappear or severely reduced and dumped on the federal government at diminished returns and now companies want to dump retirees supplemental health insurance altogether.

In Canada, the same type of fear-mongoring was going on when FTA and NAFTA were being negotiated. The facts are, that since implementation of the FTA and subsequent NAFTA, trade between USA and Canada has increased dramatically! Not as much as USA-China but a huge increase nevertheless. Look up the stats yourself.

If you check the link below, you will see that NAFTA has been a boon to offshore investments thus being able to circumvent US regulations. Check out Dubai in United Arab Emirites. Dubai is becoming a huge financial and corporate center in the global world we live in. Haliburton has already moved to Dubai and other US corporations (banksing) are also moving there. Dubai has mushroomed into an Emerald City of OZ since 2005 when it began construction and rising from the desert.

The growth of Dubai has absolutely nothing to do with NAFTA.

NAFTA was a pie-in-the-sky solution for Wall Street investments.

I'm not a CEO or corporate or any type of business person, but personally NAFTA has benefited me greatly.

Corporate profits certainly enriched corporate CEO's who are laughing all the way to the bank.

What's wrong with corporate profits? Is this a country (USA) built on the principles of democracy and free market or on the Marxist/Lenninist communist manifesto?

If you look closely, you will see the subprime real estate mess.

Absolutely not related to NAFTA whatsoever.

Oh, as another side-effect, the US dollar has crashed against the Euro. That is why fuel prices have soared.

Absolutely not related to NAFTA whatsoever.

Believe it or not, there are foreign countries who want to destroy the USA as a superpower and they are now in control of the money.

Absolutely not related to NAFTA whatsoever.

BTW - if you still don't think NAFTA has benefit USA, I suggest you read the NAFTA agreement again, and pay close attention to the sections of text dealing with natural resources (oil, water, etc.). Hint: think of the Canadian province of Alberta and the oil sands. If you can't figure it out, heres another clue: USA has a secure source of oil thanks to NAFTA.

 

[FWAAA]

What does NAFTA have to do with the possibility that UA will be broken up?

 

[mga707]

AA did not buy DL's gates when DL pulled down DFW,

True, but that was because AA was in the middle of building a all-new third terminal at the time.
It would have been a lot cheaper for them to have just taken over the DL gates, but hindsight is always 20/20...

 

[767jetz]

When you are talking to the financial community, you put lipstick on your pig. When you are trying to consolidate and want the regulators to approve a merger type transaction, you take the lipstick off of the pig.

With this I agree.

I will also add that numbers can be manipulated to show what they want. Doesn't everyone remember the BK years? So when Pilots are putting sharp pressure on management, besides the lipstick thing, they cry poverty, park airplanes, and threaten furloughs.

This is normal ops. I just can't wait to ditch this management team and have CO run the show!

 

[gaucho99]

Your post quoted above is almost completely incorrect. Here's the UAL press release so you can review the actual numbers:

http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/080422/aqtu012.html?.v=48

UA suffered an operating loss of $441 million and a negative cash flow from operations of $80 million. The total net loss was $537 million.

The $250 million distribution to shareholders didn't affect these numbers at all. Distributions like those don't impact profit or loss.

AMR reported positive cash flow from operations of $449 million. That's $529 million better than UA showed in the first quarter.

The numbers don't confirm that UA's performance was "in line" with other carriers. It was far worse.

You're probably right. I made my statement based on some posts I had seen on flyertalk. A few posters there seemed to think the actual operating loss was only $80 million. I'm not sure how thy came up with that figure.

 

[TechBoy]

I'm still at a loss as to how UA could have reported numbers that were so much worse than AA, CO, and DL. It just doesn't make any sense.

I suspect that it is increasing LCC competition at SFO, DEN and IAD. While the other carriers face LCC competition as well, only UA is experiencing significant LCC expansion at multiple hubs.