Us Parnter Ua Narrows Its August Net Loss

[USA320Pilot]

LGA Fleet Service:

LGA Fleet Service said: "You know something? These "So and So only" threads are a crock. You want to post without any dissenting voices chiming in? Set up a server,pay for some bandwidth and use a password protected environment."

Chip comments: LGA, I agree, but UnitedChicago and other United posters began this concept and received endorsement from the USaviation.com staff. The United poster's motive was to prevent me from discussing the United situation because the United posters do not like my message.

Thus, if I wanted to post some information on US Airways' business partner I had no other option.

I believe posting something restricting those who can respond is childish.

If anybody agrees with me that this is a restriction of discussion and censorship than I ask that you contact the USaviation.com Administrative staff and voice your opinion against UnitedChicago's action.

Finally, I find it interesting that some United posters endorse the censorship concept, yet come over to the US Airways board and violate this protocol. Some what hypocritical, isn't it? Unless you cannot take smash mouth internet sparring...which is something I do not do because I believe in respect.

Regards,

Chip

 

[Kyle]

Chip - we explained this to you. You will notice that UnitedChicago has not done this since Sept. 11th. I suggest you do the same.

 

[737nCH11]

ZING!!!!!!!

 

[veraberock]

Dear Chip,

It is regretful that I need to respond to you on this public forum. But because you have used this tactic, I am forced to answer you in public.

For the record, we simply asked you to respect the United Forum. In no way did we tell you that you could not post in a "United Only" thread, but we pointed out the absolute disdain you brought to that forum, and said that we would not stop them from titling a thread toward "a group". Were we going to enforce it? Of course not. Did we delete or move some of your threads in the “United onlyâ€￾ forum? Of course we did. Why? Because they were blatant "wind ups" and, in several cases, extremely off topic. For the record, a "wind up" is a thread deliberately started to divide a group in order to start an argument.

Chip, we only gave you a recommendation. We did not institute new policy. Our recommendation was one of common sense. It was a recommendation to “tread carefullyâ€￾ and pay particularly close attention to the rules of etiquette while posting in the United forum, simply because you are not very liked over there and simply because your track record isn't the best with respect to our board policies. We never censored you or prohibited you to post in that arena, nor will we allow you to prohibit or censor someone else from posting in this arena.

I hope this clears up any questions you may have. For future reference, you can always contact me via personal message. I will get back to you asap if I am in town.

Kevin

 

[737nCH11]

OUCH!!!!!

 

[delldude]

wow!

 

[767jetz]

Things that make you go hmmmmmmm.

Sounds like someone is spinning what the administrators told him, and now is getting to them as well.

Back on topic:

I am posting a response by busdrvr from another thread because it it an excellent post and is very relevent here:

"Almost ALL of the "re-organization expenses" we "non-cash" items that will never be "paid". we paid approx 8.75 million in "professional services, but I'm not sure if that is included in "RE". Here's how it works. UAL had "equity stakes" in a great number of leased AC and pre-paid leases payments on many others. Lets say we leased a jet for 30K a month. At the end of the Lease term, we were scheduled to "own" the jet. in some cases we made a "down payment" to lower lease costs. Lets pretend it's a 737-500 that UAL planned to promptly park at 20 years anyway and has little resale value. We maybe gave our "equity stake" in the jet a value of 100K. Now UAL tells the leasor that we will only pay 6K a month for the jet. The leasor tells us to pound sand, then comes back when they can't find another taker. They agree to lower the lease payments, BUT UAL forfeits the equity stake. In about 4 months we save more on lease payments than we "lost' in equity. HOWEVER, as soon as the new lease is signed, UAL has a "special charge associated with lease restructuring" of 100K. In theory UAL is "worth" 100K less on the balance sheet. Are we better off from the transaction? ABSOLUTELY. Did it make us money? IT WILL. does it go down as an expense? YES. Same applies to lease pre-payments. although our lease costs go down substantially, we "lose" the pre-payments.

Q3 2002, UAL had on-balance sheet lease and depreciation expenses of approx half a billion or 170 million a month. that number has come down as leases are renegotiated, and depreciation excellerated. However, a rational evaluation of the EBIDTAR for the month would indicate a PROFIT of between 200 and 250 MILLION DOLLARS (Operating profit - D, R and A) "

 

[767jetz]

Busdrvr:

Please conform to the decorum established by UnitedChicago, 767jetz, and yourself.

Respectfully,

Chip

For the record, I was not involved with establishing that idea. I certainly didn't object because it had the desired effect of eliminating the "wind up" that was going on.

Also for the record, it was me who initiated the cleanup of the UA board by actively advocating a policy of not responding to anyone who posts in an effort to divide a group and start an argument. So you can stop blaming busdrvr or anyone else for ruining your fun over there.

No one from UA has come here to start a thread to wind up US employees. The few UA posters who still spar with you only do so to refute inaccurate information and offer counter speculation and opinion.

I find it interesting that you get very emotional when busdrvr offers factual information in response to your opinions, and intsead of intellectually responding you basically tell him to stop disagreeing with you and go away.

Finally, I'd like to thank Dilligas and Dea Certe for pointing out the true intention of this thread's author. I believe Chip is the very vocal minority, and most of the good employees of US share your views. Thanks again and good luck to all.

 

[FlyingHippie]

Chip by any chance do you live in a pineapple under the sea?

 

[Busdrvr]

Sorry, but due to budget cutbacks, it's now uncle buds whiskey that'll be $10 please...

 

[USA320Pilot]

United turned down a concession package in Denver

S&P: “United has missed payments on most of its airport revenue bonds and said it has stopped making any such payments since Aprilâ€￾

DENVER (Reuters) - Bankrupt United Airlines about a month ago rejected an offer from the city of Denver that would have given it $10 million in concessions in exchange for ceding some gates at Denver International Airport, the mayor's spokeswoman said on Thursday.

Complete Story: http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?t...storyID=3509359

Yesterday Reuters reported Standard & Poor's analyst Philip Baggaley in a report issued on Thursday said United has missed payments on most of its airport revenue bonds and said it has stopped making any such payments since April. "The ongoing disputes with a wide range of creditors are likely to make potential lenders cautious in future dealings with United if and when it reorganizes successfully," Baggaley said.

Chip asks: During the recent US Airways MEC meeting ALPA President Captain Duane Woerth said United was just making its DIP covenants. I wonder how United’s financial results and its ability to meet strict DIP requirements would be effected if the airline would be making all of its payments? Busdrver & 767jetz, could you comment on Baggaley's comments? Another words, how would United's finances and DIP requirements be if the airline wasn't stiffing its creditors? In addition, why did S&P say in their report "if and when" United reorganizes successfully?

Furthermore, it appears that one of the top credit rating agencies doesn't agree with your opinions -- how come?

Regardless, in Pittsburgh US Airways' annual operating expense is $62 million per year, for just one airport. Considering the size of United and its airport revenue bond payments, how much money is United in default on?

I've said it before and I'll say it again, I do not have an ax to grind with United Airlines or its employees, (except for the egregious pre-nuptial seniority integration concept, which interestingly United ALPA changed on March 27, 2003 to mirror image language to US Airways ALPA to ALPA Merger & Fragmentation Policy), and my only interest in the Chicago-based airline is how it effects US Airways and its employees. It's no secret the companies continue to discuss an integration and if those discussions were with American, Northwest, or any other airline, that is where my interest would lie.

In this dog-eat-dog industry, I could care less about United except for it effects US Airways and its employees. I suspect the United employees feel the same way. Do I wish bad things on United employees? Absolutely not, but the facts are what they are...

Respectfully,

Chip

 

[wrx]

I heard on the news that UAL must have a BK recovery plan in place by March 2004. Does anybody know anything regarding this?

 

[767jetz]

I heard on the news that UAL must have a BK recovery plan in place by March 2004. Does anybody know anything regarding this?

Well, if you sift through the many, MANY threads on this web sight, and learn to filter out what's fact and what's fiction, you can get a good idea of what most people think.

I caution you to consider the source while reading however. Some self-proclaimed experts and analysts are nothing more than experts at cutting and pasting news articles, often out of context. Contrary to their assertions, they have no real inside information, and their track record of having their predictions come true is very shakey at best. Some also speculate while ignoring basic accounting rules and BK laws.

Bottom line is that UA is playing their cards very close, as not to reveal their plan to the competition. Much is going on behind the scenes that few people outside the board room have knowledge of. From my perspective as an employee who keeps as informed as possible through through union and management contacts within UA, I am convinced that UA is on track and even ahead of plan. UA is aggressively using every BK tool to it's advantage to lower cost and improve revenue, will continue to meet all of it's DIP hurdles, will continue to increase it's cash position every month, and has several (yet un-named) potential investors (not loan sharks) lined up. When a final plan is submitted in March, UA will not just emerge with it's head above water, but will be on track to be the healthiest large network carrier in the industry. Of course, this is all JMHO.

Here are a few of my own predictions: UA's new LCO will have a lower CASM than Frontier and will put serious pressure on them in DEN; When UA emerges it will lead the industry in revenue improvement; The additional money UA is seeking from the ATSB will be used to strengthen it's markets and position it to buy assets of any airline that may falter in the future; Upon emerging UA will anounce a large aircraft purchase backed by Airbus to replace the 737 fleet, possibly grow the LCO, and bolster it's international operations; UA will start to recall furloughed employees sometime next year.

 

[novaqt]

Chip:

If I read correctly, United turned down the Denver concession package a month ago, because it asked for United to give up several of its gates to Denver's Frontier Airlines. IMHO, that was a wise decision on United's part since it has subsequently announced a week ago that United will be starting its LCC from Denver to various leisure markets and some feed to its Star hubs sometime during the first quarter of 2004. Now that the announcement has been made, United and Denver are currently in discussion with each other. As has been mentioned to you before, United holds its plans close to the chest and with good reason. Don't you agree?

 

[USA320Pilot]

Novaqt

Novaqt said: "As has been mentioned to you before, United holds its plans close to the chest and with good reason. Don't you agree?"

Chip answers: To some extent, however, the company must share its PORwith the creditors committee during company/creditors meetings. This is required by the bankruptcy code.

I believe United management is putting out spin, just like US Airways did during its formal reorganization, to prevent passenger difection.

Here are major points of concern:

The inability for United to obtain exit financing, which Duane Woerth said was unavailable except through the ATSB.

The uphill battle to obtain legislative relief for the pension plans. What will happen if United management uses a S.1113 motion to terminate pension plans, with ALPA the likely target?

The municpal bond litigation, especially since S&P told investors and analysts United has missed payments on most of its airport revenue bonds and said it has stopped making any such payments since April. "The ongoing disputes with a wide range of creditors are likely to make potential lenders cautious in future dealings with United if and when it reorganizes successfully," the credit agency reported to the public.

S&P's Phiilp Baggaley is a well-respected analyst and his comment of "if and when it reorganizes successfully" will further erode consumer and investor confidence.

The ratings agency needs to communicate to the market if we are going to make a market adjustment in the effected airport's and airlines credit rating, thus Baggaley's report could make it even more difficult to obtain exit financing.

In addition, the on-going dispute with Atlantic Coast Airlines, who has now hired marketing and aircraft purchase consultants, to prepare for its own independent operation, clouds United's future and that of its Dulles hub.

Out of all of these problems, it appears that the pension and exit financing issue is becoming more problematic, which could be why S&P and other analysts have become much more sanguine about United's ability to emerge from Chapter 11.

Respectfully,

Chip