US business parter UA plans to return to basics, Business blueprint presented to creditors

[USA320Pilot]

Bear96:

It couldn't be that UA employees are so sensitive and scared of the bankruptcy unknown, that their perception is what is causing this debate.

How many of the posts in this thread are from UA employees, visiting the US board, trying to shot holes in my research, analysis, and reports?

I'm not trying to be inflammatory and if I did, I would post on the UA board, which I do not. In fact, I just heard there is a thread on the UA board about me, which I find interesting that UA employees and those interested in the company want to talk about me on their board. That's flattering, regardless of the content, that people read my analysis and thoughts and feel the need to start a thread of internal debate.

Again, my only interests are in US like your interests are in UA, nothing more. I have nothing against UA, although to be honest, I do disagree with the UA ALPA position on UA super seniority and their thoughts on a pre-nuptial agreement.

By the way, speaking on that subject, if US does acquire UA assets, should the US employees demand a pre-nuptial seniority agreement before UA employees could transfer to US, like the UA pilots demanded in ERP I and ERP II, giving US employees super seniority? What if the US Flight Attendants demanded a pre-nuptial seniority agreement with your employee group, the UA Flight Attendants? How would you react?

The pre-nup comment is not the intent of this post and to get back to my point, I fully understand the stress of bankruptcy -- we lived it -- that in my opinion may be the cause of the UA employees emotion on this issue.

Regardless, I do find it interesting the UA employees visit the US board to talk about their company.

Best regards,

Chip

 

[Bear96]

----------------
On 6/20/2003 3:28:19 PM Chip Munn wrote:

Bear96:

It couldn''t be that UA employees are so sensitive and scared of the bankruptcy unknown, that their perception is what is causing this debate.

----------------​

Of COURSE UA employees are sensitive and scared of the bankruptcy unknown. This debate, however, is being caused by you trying to constantly portray everything at UA in as negative a light as possible, while ignoring the dire straits that U finds itself in. Chip, it is quite obvious what you are doing and what your intentions are. That you continue to believe that no one can see through you is comical. A debate is good-- make your point and move on; let others make their point as well, and consider that what others have to say may not be totally off-base just because it doesn''t conform to your preconceived view of the UA world.

----------------

How many of the posts in this thread are from UA employees, visiting the US board, trying to shot holes in my research, analysis, and reports?

----------------​

So your posts are the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth; and anyone who dares to post some facts or an article supporting a differing opinion is "shooting holes in your research?"

----------------

I''m not trying to be inflammatory and if I did, I would post on the UA board, which I do not. In fact, I just heard there is a thread on the UA board about me...

----------------​

Oh please. So if I post on the (for example) jetBlue board that all (for example) AA employees are all gross, overpaid, fat, lazy, and rude and don''t deserve to have a job, since I didn''t post it on the AA board I am not being inflammatory? Your logic is beyond illogical.

And-- oh please #2-- you "just heard" there is a thread about you on the UA board. Like you aren''t over there lurking just as much as you are over here. Again-- comical-- that you think everyone posting on that thread doesn''t assume that you are reading every word.

----------------

By the way, speaking on that subject, if US does acquire UA assets, should the US employees demand a pre-nuptial seniority agreement before UA employees could transfer to US, like the UA pilots demanded in ERP I and ERP II, giving US employees super seniority? What if the US Flight Attendants demanded a pre-nuptial seniority agreement with your employee group, the UA Flight Attendants? How would you react?

----------------​

I am not familiar with the UA pilots'' seniority agreements in ERP I or II so I cannot comment on the specific "pre-nuptial" type of agreement they had. However, speaking generally about seniority integration, I believe how seniorities are merged should depend on the status and health of each company at the time of the merger and associated career expectations; and there should be fences on both sides to keep people from being forced out of where they are based (and equipment, for pilots) at the time of the merger, to the extent possible.

To be more specific, every airline merger/acquisition is unique, but with the most recent and relevant example of the proposed UA/U merger/acquisition in 2000, I did not believe U F/As should come in with full seniority; nor did I believe they should have been stapled to the bottom of the UA seniority list. Because at the time the deal was first proposed U was the considerably weaker entity with a limited route structure and equipment, I did not agree with U F/As coming in with full seniority (because they did not start at U with, for example, career expectations of flying trans-Pacific, our most senior flying). However they should have had some recognition for their experience and for what the addition of the U network would have done for the combined entity and so I did not think simply stapling them to the bottom of the seniority list would have been appropriate either. The approach I thought would have been most fair at the time was to do a 1-for-1 integration from the BOTTOM of the system seniority list, with approporiate fences at specific bases to prevent anyone from being forced out of their base at the time of the integration. For example, starting at the bottom of the two seniority lists and working up, take the last name from the U list; then the last one from the UA list; then the next-to-last one from the U list; then the next-to-last one from the UA list; and so on.

Now in 2003 UA is a very weak entity, so if some hypothetical much stronger airline were to suddenly come along and was able to buy UA (and don''t get excited about a UTC; I said "hypothetical" because I don''t believe such an airline exists today-- no matter how many times Alabama Dave salivates publicly over UA), I would expect to lose a considerable amount of relative seniority to the other airlines'' Flight Attendants.

----------------

I fully understand the stress of bankruptcy -- we lived it -- that in my opinion may be the cause of the UA employees emotion on this issue.

----------------​

Then it puzzles me why you never offer a little support and encouragement to UA employees, and instead seem to strive to-- and take enjoyment from-- presenting UA in as negative light as possible. (And IMO I wouldn''t talk about the having "lived the stress of bankruptcy" only in the past tense, if I were a U employee.)

----------------

Regardless, I do find it interesting the UA employees visit the US board to talk about their company.

----------------​

And *I* find it interesting that you find such a dull concept so interesting! Why do you seem to have the conception that employees or passengers of one airline can only post in that airline''s forum? If a topic is interesting and someone sees it, they should be free to post there. A topic about UA will attract posts from UA employees, no matter in what forum it is located. You seem unable to grasp that for some reason.

As for me, not only will I post in whatever forum I feel like (I have even posted in the-- gasp-- AA forum from time to time... even sometimes when the topic is NOT UA... that must REALLY fascinate and confuse you!), but I will continue to visit the U board as necessary to hold you accountable for your posts, since you say you choose to post only in the U forum.


Best regards,

Bear96

 

[PITbull]

Management,

GIVE US BACK OUR 5%...UAL cancelled their war deferral and they are in much worse shape the all of the carriers today!

 

[USA320Pilot]

Bear96:

Just one more thing...if you doubt what I say why don''t you email Greg Taylor or Doug Hacker and ask them for the definition of Chicago East or Chicago West?

Best regards,

Chip

 

[iflyjetz]

----------------
On 6/20/2003 6:31:01 AM Chip Munn wrote:
Let''s be honest here. The only reason UA employees do not like what I post is they are petrified my information will come true.
----------------​

Chip, I don''t like what you write because you''ve broken an unwritten rule in the aviation industry. That is public discussion of the possible liquidation of another carrier. It shows complete lack of maturity and responsibility. Fortunately, you are by no means representative of U''s employees, but in every large organization, there''s always a few ''J''s. We also have ''em over at UAL.

Chip wrote: However, in the case of US & UA, two likely consolidation candidates, how can UA be the surviving business entity if the airline has been unable to obtain exit financing, a loan guarantee, or an equity plan sponsor? Furthermore, if UA does win approval of its $1.8 billion federal loan guarantee request, $1.5 billion of that money has to pay off the DIP financing.

Iflyjetz responds: I realize that you were a journalism major and lack formal education in business and finance. However, I must correct some glaring errors here. First, UAL has not taken all $1.5 bil in DIP, and in fact has taken less than allowed on the latest tranche. I don''t have a link and I''m not going to waste my time digging one up. Second, where on God''s green earth did you come up with the idea that UAL would have to pay back DIP participants with the federal loan guarantee? I haven''t dug into this for a while, but I seem to recall that most of the DIP financiers would recieve newly issued stock in exchange for their DIP participation, just as Bronner did at U. Did you think that Bronner was paid back with U''s loan guarantee PLUS >30% equity ownership in U? But it''s good that you''re not negative on UAL, right? RIIIIGHT!

Chip sez: It couldn''t be that UA employees are so sensitive and scared of the bankruptcy unknown, that their perception is what is causing this debate.

Iflyjetz responds: No Chip, once AGAIN, for emphasis. You''ve broken an unwritten rule in the aviation industry; talking about the liquidation of another carrier in PUBLIC. It''s done in private, but is gauche to conduct that type of conversation in public.

Chip sez: How many of the posts in this thread are from UA employees, visiting the US board, trying to shot holes in my research, analysis, and reports?

Iflyjetz responds: I first starting reading this board when the acquisition of U by UAL was announced. I seem to recall you posting that it was a slam dunk and proceeded to explain why it would be DOH. Little did you know or comprehend the reason why the shell company Yellowjacket Holdings was set up. You would not have been happy had the acquisition gone to fruition; UAL management had some despicable plans for U employees.
You lost all credibility with me back then, and you have gone out of your way to reinforce my low opinion of you with this general theme.

For the rest of the good employees of U, my sympathies. Above, Diogenes has posted a likely future scenario. Beware the * alliance. UAL and LH are predators and they devour their ''partners'' in small pieces.
It is reminscent of TWA when they were concerned of Lorenzo taking over. Along came a white knight in Carl Icahn. Need I say more?

I have tried to refrain from posting over here, but Chip''s irresponsible taunts were too much to overcome. I fell off the wagon.

 

[FlyingHippie]

Chip, no offense, but your research is mostly your own point of view speculation. Personally, I''ve been reading your notes over the years and Mr. Munn you are wrong an awful lot. Any way you slice it, your summations are more of the swiss cheese variety. I guess its everyone read at your own risk.

 

[atlmd80]

Iflyjetz responds: I realize that you were a journalism major and lack formal education in business and finance. However, I must correct some glaring errors here. First, UAL has not taken all $1.5 bil in DIP, and in fact has taken less than allowed on the latest tranche. I don''t have a link and I''m not going to waste my time digging one up. Second, where on God''s green earth did you come up with the idea that UAL would have to pay back DIP participants with the federal loan guarantee? I haven''t dug into this for a while, but I seem to recall that most of the DIP financiers would recieve newly issued stock in exchange for their DIP participation, just as Bronner did at U. Did you think that Bronner was paid back with U''s loan guarantee PLUS >30% equity ownership in U? But it''s good that you''re not negative on UAL, right? RIIIIGHT!



Chip may not be right about the total DIP amount. The news article above said 1.2 bil. I think he is correct about the timing of the repayment. The DIP loan plus interest is due upon emergence from BK. The stock you are referring to was an incentive given to the banks, from UAL, to put up the DIP financing in the first place. Bronner was paid back the DIP plus the equity ownership. BK is not the free ride people are making it out to be. The groups who give this financing are taking a great risk on companies in terrible shape. If the company makes it they win big. If not, then they get tied up in court.

 

[LavMan]

Iflyjetz, US Airways did in fact use the ATSB loan to pay back the RSA for the DIP financing.

 

[iflyjetz]

----------------
On 6/20/2003 838 PM LavMan wrote:


Iflyjetz, US Airways did in fact use the ATSB loan to pay back the RSA for the DIP financing.

----------------​

I stand (er, sit) corrected. Thanks for clarifying.

 

[USA320Pilot]

Iflyjetz:

Your post is filled with inaccurate statements, however, I'm not going to take the time to research the links or argue with you.

By the way, why don't you email Doug Hacker or Greg Taylor and ask them to explain to you Chicago East and Chicago West?

Best regards,

Chip

 

[Fly]

My pilot buddy over at U says he knows Chip and that Chip''s true blue. Says he acts just like this in real life too!

 

[LavMan]

Ifly, don''t try to use logic and common sense, because it does not work on that particular pilot, he believes what he wants and no matter if you prove him wrong, he will never admit it.

He once was Dave''s biggest fan, when Dave threatened to pull his pension he did a total 180, now he turned back 180 again and his Dave''s biggest fan once again.

 

[iflyjetz]

----------------
On 6/21/2003 12:56:01 AM Chip Munn wrote:


Iflyjetz:

Your post is filled with inaccurate statements, however, I''m not going to take the time to research the links or argue with you.

By the way, why don''t you email Doug Hacker or Greg Taylor and ask them to explain to you Chicago East and Chicago West? 

Best regards,

Chip 

----------------​

Chip,
I''ll say this one more time; I am hoping that it will EVENTUALLY sink into your cranium case. You''ve broken an unwritten rule in the aviation industry; talking about the liquidation of another carrier in PUBLIC. Many do it in private, but it is reprehensible to encourage this type of discussion in public masquerading as an ''academic exercise.''
Even more amazing is that your carrier has gone through similar rough times, yet lack any understanding of how your words effect the employees of the carrier that you pontificate on fragmenting. And then you have the gall to act the innocent victim as those who have been provoked retaliate.
You are the pilot that all other labor groups stereotype; an oversized ego coupled with total lack of compassion for your fellow man.

 

[LavMan]

avek00, get your facts straight, the IAM members were the last ones to get a "seamless" contract, which took a couple of years past their amendable dates, those employees sacrificed for years and now their returns are going to be voided. Put the blame where it belongs, ALPA and the summer of hell, and UAL management for giving their pilots raises that were 31% and higher!

 

[iflyjetz]

----------------
On 6/21/2003 944 AM LavMan wrote:


Ifly, don''t try to use logic and common sense, because it does not work on that particular pilot, he believes what he wants and no matter if you prove him wrong, he will never admit it.

He once was Dave''s biggest fan, when Dave threatened to pull his pension he did a total 180, now he turned back 180 again and his Dave''s biggest fan once again.

----------------​

Lavman,
I concur with your assessment. I don''t know why I like beating my head against brick walls.
I apologize on behalf of all pilots who don''t understand the plight of their fellow workers.
A certain pilot espoused his societal contributions on another thread; I have no desire to pontificate on my accomplishments in life; I''m very grateful for my roots that have allowed me to keep my ego in check. I am doing very well for a college dropout who enlisted in the Air Force. I''ll never forget where I came from and what it''s like to live on less than $1000 a month. I wish that I could say that my success is due to talent, but it''s been blind luck. I will NEVER forget what it was like to sweat out those days just prior the paycheck, and understand that there are so many airline employees who are struggling through the same.