delivery100
Active member
- Joined
- Jan 30, 2003
- Posts
- 33
Boeingman said:I'd be willing to bet my contacts with the finacial industry go far and above the crew room gossip you're relying on about UAL. In fact, just by your posts your niavity on the situation is, well, breathtaking. But that doesn''t seem surprising. That attitude over there seems pandemic, which is a big part of the problem.
Well, your assumptions are wrong once again. I do not work for UAL and also do not rely on "gossip" in any crew rooms. My niavety (spelled correctly on my post) on the situation is breathtaking? Please, I am acknowledging the precarious situation UAL is facing.
Boeingman said:UAL is in serious trouble with their DIP financing. The first gate, although met, was the easiest. With the $382 million dollar loss for Jan. it has put the company far behind the next gates. Let's not forget those losses do not include the fact UAL is making zero aircraft lease payments and zero pre petition c11 debt obligations.
But, if things are going so well why did State Street Bank move to liquidate the outstanding shares being held? Why did UAL sell 5 744's to Thai at fire sale prices? If I had the time, I'd post a few blistering articles based on factual financial data that shows UAL is imploding financially.
As with any DIP covenants, the gates or bench marks always become more and more strict until the company returns to profitability. UAL has EASILY passed the first test, and is continuing to trim costs to meet the next bench mark. If improving from a 20 mil/ month to a 12 mil/month loss in 2 months was a signal that future benchmarks would definitely not initially enough, Why wouldn't they pull the plug today?
As far as selling the 747's, they were parked in the desert for over a year. And the selling of the remaining stock? Please...even if UAL successfully reorganizes, the stock will still be worthless. I'd like to know who is buying it.
Boeingman said:As a taxpayer I'm glad Bethune was saying what everyone wanted too, but no one had the balls to say. UAL did not deserve the loan based on the financial condition of the company. They misrepresented to the ATSB their true financial picture by about 15 million a day, they had no credible business plan to emerge from bankruptcy and they could not prove to the Government they could pay the money back. Sorry, but that is just business. You think Bethune's comments changed the true financial picture of UAL? It is about the ability to repay not what someone thinks they should get or thinks they deserve. Bethune was right, your management is still clueless and there is no viable plan. Oh I forgot, the LCC thing. That sir is a joke.
Bethune was saying what everyone wanted too. Well, again sir, you are misinformed. Speak for yourself and the people you talk to. Don't for a second think your spineless CEO was speaking for everyone.
Yes, Uniteds financial situation was suffering pre 9-11, but I have not read or heard one opinion that suggests that UAL would be where it currently is at this time without the attacks on the US as well as UA and AA. So, should the GOV provide their signature on a loan for UAL? You G d*mn right they should have. Whether UAL would have been ultimately doomed or not, it WAS the right thing to do. If the US can try to bribe Turkey with tens of billions of dollars to allow our troops on their ground, they can surely co-sign for a loan for a company that was DIRECTLY attacked on that fateful day in September.
I guess Deltas LCC is a joke as well, and AMR for considering the idea as well.
Boeingman said:You're forgetting the Government did give UAL (and others) cash to stabilize. What happened to UAL was a terrible act of cowardice. What is disgusting is your contention that because of that, you feel you're more deserving than others and to hell with everything and everybody else.
The industry as a whole deserved the opportunity for financial aid. But do I think that UAL and AMR deserved more opportunity because THEIR aircraft were used as missiles? ABSOLUTELY! Are you so naive that you dont think brand recognition meant anything? When the entire world saw United and American 767's flying into buildings? You dont think that affected travel demand MORE on those carriers?
Boeingman said:I feel for the people there, but I can vividly remember the absolute harrassment UAL employees showed towards CAL during our last BK in Denver. (I was walking a picket line for the first one).
The only harassment UAL employees gave CAL employees was to the very large group of scabs that CAL once had. Did you not walk the picket line for the last one?