Us Airways Seeks New Cuts From Workers

[colorado_cowboy]

Where you been?

I asked a legitimate question if "Where you been?" is the best you can do for an answer than why bother answering at all?

 

[Superjames]

What I find frustrating is the constant crisis mode at UAIR. If you went back to these boards two or three years ago, the same subjects would be bantered...Wolfe = Seagull=The new guy vs. ALPA & The IAM & APA & CWA, etc., etc., etc.=Employees in general. How dreadfully boring this has become. It is the same play, act four. What time is it? When is this play over? "I want to get out of this place, if it is the last thing I ever do!" Ah, there is a new play showing in PHL, let us go and see it!
Autofixer...somehow my son has changed my name, etc.

 

[repeet]

CBS Market Watch - LOS ANGELES - Shares of US Airways could be a focus in Monday's trading session after the group said it could break even in the second quarter, according to an Securities and Exchange Commission filing on Friday.

CBS Financial Article

Like what oldiebutgoody said:
"They've reached a point where they can't hide the cash anymore, and will have to show at least breakeven for the second quarter."

 

[E-TRONS]

I recall reading in AW&ST (I have to verify) that U-S Airways was 30% hedged for fuel in 2004?? I do not remember hearing about this from the company. This would be a good place to hide money with the added benefit of saving money.

What about contributions to pension funds?? Can we find out if any monies were contributed to the pensions as of late?? That would be another way to quietly reduce the quarterly results.

Just some thoughts. I will post the fuel hedge source when I locate it.

What about it MW ???

 

[mweiss]

Well, E, if that MW is me, I'd love to see the numbers. Sure beats the rhetoric any day!

But I don't think that buying fuel contracts or paying into the pension fund will have any impact on the bottom line.

Fuel hedging impacts cash flow, to be sure, but when you buy a fuel contract, cash drops and non-cash assets increase by the same amount. Periodically, the contracts are supposed to be reassessed and adjusted in the non-cash asset bucket.

Similarly, putting cash into the pension fund would drop cash but at the same time would drop liability by the same amount. Unpaid pension is a liability on the books.

Bottom line is no change in the bottom line.

 

[usairways_vote_NO]

I asked a legitimate question if "Where you been?" is the best you can do for an answer than why bother answering at all?

Is it a legitimate question or a flame question? Do you think anyone really knows the answer to that? Or were you trying to get our famous pilot to post his rambling hypothesis again?

Lets see you are posing this hypothetical question, lets go over it for you

"And what would happen if an agreement between the company and the IAM can’t be reached. Then what, abrogation?"

Ok the company can't reach agreement with union on concessions, up to and including any talks while in bankrupcty, if they go to bankruptcy. So that would be the only fact we know from your question and that fact will remain for the rest of this discussion.

OK now, It would be a fact that the company can't abrogate a contract without going to bankruptcy so if the company doesn't seek bankruptcy protection then there will be no abrogation. So what else could happen in that situation? We know you said they can't reach agreement and we know they can't abrogate so it makes sense that either it would be status que or maybe, if they even did talk or not, the company gives a offer to union (not endorsed by union, you said they never agreed) and the union lets the members vote on it and either they vote yes or no. In the case of no bankruptcy I can't see any other options. Now....

If they went to bankruptcy and no agreement can be reached and the company decides to try to abrogate contract then it would be up to the judge to decide after weighing all the evidence to abrogate or not. If he says yes then its abrogated and company is free to impose there offer and union is free to self help. If he says no either the company figures a way to go on with the contract or have that vote again (the one I talked about above) or they throw in towel and its done. Or maybe they judge has different ideas?

How was that answer? Pretty much a waste of time going over it huh.

Oh by the way I thought my question was more legitmate then yours, its not like it has not been combed over before and even recently too. That why I asked where have you been.

 

[delldude]

Or maybe they judge has different ideas?

the courts do not negotiate contracts........

 

[Cosmo]

The company would like to enter a quick Chapter 11, which could be as little as 120 days, and finish what they did not do in the first filing because Dave Siegel wanted to exit bankruptcy as fast as possible to complete a corporate transaction with United Airlines, as Dow Jones accurately pointed out.

USA320Pilot:

That's a false and revisionist view of US Airways' need to exit bankruptcy by no later than March 31, 2003, and you know it. As can be seen from the following quote from the second full paragraph on page 42 of US Airways' SEC Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2002 (filed on March 27, 2003), there was ONE, AND ONLY ONE, reason that US Airways HAD to exit bankruptcy by March 31, 2003: the carrier's credit card processing agreement with NPC expired by its terms on that date, and US Airways could not attract another credit card processor while it remained in bankruptcy. As was stated in the 10-K filing:

US Airways utilizes third party service providers to process credit card transactions. As a result of the Chapter 11 filing, these providers have required additional cash collateral to minimize their exposure. If US Airways fails to meet certain financial or nonfinancial covenants, these providers can (i) require additional cash collateral or additional discretionary amounts upon the occurrence of certain events; and (ii) under certain circumstances, terminate such credit card processing agreements. US Airways has received proposals from and is in negotiations with potential credit card processors for Visa and MasterCard transactions, once US Airways emerges from Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection and transitions its current relationship with National Processing Corporation (NPC), a division of National City Bank of Cleveland. US Airways currently has an agreement with NPC which expires March 31, 2003, but which provides for a 45-day extension if a series of milestones are met. Specifically, the 45-day extension with NPC requires that the Company have a confirmed plan of reorganization and a new credit card processing agreement in place by March 31, 2003. The Company then has to substantially complete the plan and close on the ATSB Loan by April 15, 2003, allowing for an extension of the NPC agreement until May 15, 2003. Assuming these conditions are met, US Airways would expect to transition to its new processor in late April or early May. However, there can be no assurance that the current contract can be extended beyond March 31, 2003, if US Airways does not execute an agreement with a new processor by this date. The termination of credit card processing agreements could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s liquidity, financial condition and results of operations.

In other words, if US Airways' couldn't process credit card transactions, its cash inflow would come to a screeching halt and the carrier probably would have ceased operating shortly thereafter.

Any discussions that might have been taking place regarding a transaction between US Airways and United were of secondary importance at that time. And I'm still not convinced that any such "discussions" were anything more than ideas tossed back and forth between Seigel and Bronner. But that's JMHO.

RSA publicly said they would finance such a deal, and we have all read David Bronner’s comments in the press about RSA’s involvement, but the Iraqi War and SARS ended before United defaulted on their DIP requirements.

Gee, you almost sound unhappy that United met (and continues to meet) its DIP requirements. That's pretty pathetic!

 

[avek00]

It will be virtually impossible for US Airways to preserve its equity in the event of a Chapter 11 filing, as the current stockholders' equity is just $30 million (as of 3/31/04), and the unsecured creditor claims from rejected/renegotiated debt and leasing agreements would almost certainly exceed that amount.

 

[mweiss]

It will be virtually impossible for US Airways to preserve its equity in the event of a Chapter 11 filing...

There's nothing virtual about it. Bankruptcy nullifies all equity, by definition.

 

[colorado_cowboy]

Oh by the way I thought my question was more legitmate

1) That’s what you get for thinking and not knowing!

2) Unlike you I don’t spend every waking moment on this board. I work 2 full time jobs so excuse me if I’m not up on what’s currently going on at US Airways AKA the Titanic.

3) The people that do know me on this board know I don’t post to flame. I come to this board to find out what's going on with the company. Being out here on the west coast were treated like bastard child of US Air and know little or nothing about what may or may not happen.

 

[to much time to quit]

And what would happen if an agreement between the company and the IAM can’t be reached. Then what, abrogation?

It dosen't even take a left coaster to realize that will never happen. We will keep voting until we get it right. Then the company and union will both be content.

 

[RowUnderDCA]

There's nothing virtual about it. Bankruptcy nullifies all equity, by definition.

Thank you, I've been wondering about that for weeks. How do you preserve equity in bankruptcy. Isn't that like preserving virginity through pregnancy?

 

[Bear96]

There's nothing virtual about it. Bankruptcy nullifies all equity, by definition.

I too have been puzzled by USA320Pilot's vision of a "pre-packaged" bankruptcy that somehow wipes out labor contracts yet keeps equity and stock value intact.