Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
  • Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
  • Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
  • Share the passion for aviation
  • Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun

Crain's Business sees tough UAL future

Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
  • Invite your friends
  • Share the passion of aviation
  • Friendliest aviation community on the web

lowecur

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 14, 2003
Posts
2,317
In an election year where jobs are scarce, the Bush administration will lean on the ATSB to approve the loan backing. United's fate will not be determined for at least another 3 or 4 years.



United's numbers don't fly

Cost cuts not enough to lift airline into the black

The most basic rule of business is that revenues must exceed costs.

After 14 months in bankruptcy, United Airlines hasn't shown it can live by that rule.

Despite squeezing concessions out of its unions, suppliers and aircraft lessors, United still spends more money than it takes in. For all its cost-cutting, the airline is on track to lose $425 million this year, if revenues are flat at the $13.7 billion recorded in 2003.

CEO Glenn Tilton hopes to narrow the gap further by wringing more givebacks out of the lessors and adding more seats to some flights. With a few breaks, United might even edge slightly into the black this year.

That's the financial picture United will present to the bankruptcy judge it hopes will clear the airline to exit Chapter 11 by summer, and to federal officials deciding whether to guarantee a loan to finance United's post-bankruptcy operations.

But even if the judge and the Air Transportation Stabilization Board (ATSB) give their blessings, United's future is far from secure.

"Whether they survive or not is still subject to question," says Morton Beyer, chairman and CEO of Morton Beyer & Agnew Inc., a Virginia-based aircraft appraisal and consulting firm.

Officials of UAL Corp., United's Elk Grove Township-based parent, declined to comment. But in announcing last year's results, Mr. Tilton noted that "our work is not done yet. We have made significant progress on restructuring this company, and we will continue to make the tough decisions to successfully exit from Chapter 11 in the first half of this year."

Under its current cost structure, United's long- term survival depends on significant revenue growth. That will be difficult in an industry dominated by discount carriers, plagued by price wars and hobbled by slumping demand.

"The industry is not going to return to profitability until fuel costs come down and they get an increase in yield revenues, which so far hasn't happened," says Ray Neidl, an airline analyst with Blaylock & Partners L.P., a New York-based brokerage firm. Yield revenues are a function of both overall fare levels and the mix of high-fare and low-fare passengers.

United hasn't used its time in bankruptcy to get in shape to compete with the discounters. In the last quarter, United reduced its operating expenses 16% to 9.85 cents for every seat flown one mile. That's far above the 7.69-cent cost per available seat mile of the leading discount carrier, Southwest Airlines.

Cut-rate competition

Put another way, United needs to fill 83.1% of its seats to break even. That's a big improvement over the last quarter of 2002, when it filed for bankruptcy protection: It then needed to fill an impossible 99.8% of its seats to cover costs. But as of December, it was filling less than 77% of its seats.

"Their break-even load factor has to come down below 75%, and I don't see that happening," says Henry Harteveldt, vice-president of travel research at Forrester Research Inc., a Massachusetts-based market research firm.

But getting costs down further risks renewed labor turmoil, as seen in the fierce pushback by some unions over proposed cuts in retiree health benefits. And United's ability to raise ticket prices or attract more passengers is flying into more competition from low-cost carriers as well as United's peers.

"Every time there's an uptick in fares, someone will throw capacity at it," says Richard Bittenbender, a vice-president and senior credit officer at New York credit-rating firm Moody's Investors Service Inc.

United itself plans to add 5% more capacity this year, including the additional seats it's installing on the planes assigned to Ted, the new low-fare subsidiary that's scheduled to start flying this week out of Denver. Last week, United announced plans for another Ted hub, in Washington, D.C.

A partner turns rival

But that new hub is offset by a bigger threat to United's revenues. Atlantic Coast Airlines Holdings Inc., the United Express affiliate based at United's Dulles International Airport hub, is severing its relationship with United. That will cut off a pipeline of passengers to United at Dulles.

Ted is United's answer to discount airlines. But the low-fare airline-within-an-airline concept has been tried and has failed before. Last week, Atlanta-based Delta Air Lines Inc. halted expansion of its new discount unit, called Song.

As United seeks a 60% government guarantee for a $2-billion exit-financing loan, its prospects are clouded by the experience of Virginia-based U.S. Airways Group Inc. Less than a year after exiting Chapter 11, U.S. Airways is shedding assets and seeking more labor concessions as it struggles to stay aloft.

"U.S. Air's experience has to affect how the ATSB looks at United," says Moody's Mr. Bittenbender.
 
I cannot not remember the exact time line, but didn't Pan Am and Eastern die on Daddy Bush's watch. That was close to if not, an election year.

W. Does not care about the airlines. It is all about big business and his buddies that run those big business.

UAL and the U are still in big trouble. Only time will tell who will be left standing.
 
I just can't see how UAL is going to make it. Someone check my numbers. $3B in 2002 and $2B in 2003 -- adds to $5B over two years. If they are indeed on track to post another -$400M in 2004, they will go under. What investor wants to stomach a $5.5B sea of red ink?

Even under good circumstances, let's say they make $200M a quarter ... it will be 5-6 years just to get back to square one. How can Ted be different ... looks to be a diversion to me. I see it as a squander of resources. Why not concentrate on UAL core marketplace and raise fares on those legs where they indeed own the segments. The though of getting smaller is too painful. I bet Frontier eats 'em alive going head to head with Ted. At UAL's .09 plus per seat mile, it is just too hard to make serious profit -- to much rides on the capicity number. I bet they burn up equipment making pennies on the dollar and then how will they replace the jets with no big bank account. With debt at junk status and below, the cost to borrow goes up ... why should the Feds loan 'em $2B to keep 'em afloat if AA, NW, and CAL have lower costs. This is absolutely make or break time for UAL, 70 years of aviation is on the line. My personal opinion is that they get credit squeezed at year's end and really do cease ops. Would you invest in the company .... so why should pension funds or other long term debtors buy the bonds?

Anyone?
 
"Someone check my numbers. $3B in 2002 and $2B in 2003 -- adds to $5B over two years. If they are indeed on track to post another -$400M in 2004, they will go under. What investor wants to stomach a $5.5B sea of red ink?"

Uh, I don't think you understand BK. Just as UAL has been piling on the "losses" since BK, you will see a HUGE profit for the quarter they emerge from BK. And you know what? It won't be real. That's the glory of BK. UAL will simply drop 5 BILLION off the balance sheet and emerge with significantly LOWER debt than DAL, AMR, NWA and CAL. They will also emerge with LOWER costs than ALL the other network carriers.

"At UAL's .09 plus per seat mile, it is just too hard to make serious profit -- to much rides on the capicity number. I bet they burn up equipment making pennies on the dollar and then how will they replace the jets with no big bank account."

First, whats the CASM from DEN to COS? IAD to FRA? SFO-PHX? Short answer is you can't merely say "the Q's show a .095 casm so that must be true for ALL routes" Whats the CASM for a 747 with over 80 business and FC seats? How about an A320 with 138 seats? How about an A320 with 156 seats? by your logic, if the 138 seat A320 has a casm of .09 then TED will have a .079 CASM. As to wearing out the jets, UAL has one of the youngest, (and likely THE youngest when considered from top to bottom) fleets in the industry. EVERY jet is glass, EVERY jet is a high bypass fan, EVERY jet has audio entertainment. IOW, they have a LONNNNNG way to go to get to AMR, DAL and NWA "age". In any case, the A320 will last at least 25 years with little or no mx, just ask JB's accountants....

"it will be 5-6 years just to get back to square one."

No, the day after emergence, they will be at square one.

"then how will they replace the jets with no big bank account."

FYI, Airbus is the lead on the UCC, therefore they will have a sizable stake in post BK UAL, hmmm, I wonder if they will give UAL some jets at a good rate. Rumour has it that UAL has a few A321's already painted, ready to go upon exit.

BTW, are you flying the T-38C? How's the glass?
 
T-Bags said:

Uh, I don't think you understand BK. Just as UAL has been piling on the "losses" since BK, you will see a HUGE profit for the quarter they emerge from BK. And you know what? It won't be real. That's the glory of BK. UAL will simply drop 5 BILLION off the balance sheet and emerge with significantly LOWER debt than DAL, AMR, NWA and CAL. They will also emerge with LOWER costs than ALL the other network carriers.

Hmmm...that sounds almost just like the pitch heard from USAirways prior to their emerging from Ch11. Reality has not been quite so peaches & cream for them, though.

Oh, and let's not forget that 5 BILLION that UAL will simply drop off the balance sheet represents 5 THOUSAND-MILLION dollars that UAL has screwed out of investors, creditors, and municipalities who put their faith in the company. THAT'S the REAL 'glory' of BK....and it's nothing to be proud of!
 
"Hmmm...that sounds almost just like the pitch heard from USAirways prior to their emerging from Ch11."

U dropped around 2 billion off the balance sheet. They emerged too early. But you must be proud, to compete with airlines with no pensions, they dropped theirs. Good for you, your way won out....


"Oh, and let's not forget that 5 BILLION that UAL will simply drop off the balance sheet represents 5 THOUSAND-MILLION dollars that UAL has screwed out of investors, creditors, and municipalities who put their faith in the company. THAT'S the REAL 'glory' of BK....and it's nothing to be proud of!"

Absolutely not, but UAL has over the years paid out MUCH more in dividends than SWA, and any losses on loans we to people who bought bonds that paid higher rates, higher rates equal higher risks. But again, you must be proud!!! your way is less pilots doing more work and the government left to cover your retirement. Goody, your way won. Five years from now, if SWA's stock actually goes up,and they have grown appreciably from where they are now, then you can gloat, till then, just enjoy the smuggness that comes with the distruction of a profession. In case you weren't paying attention, UAL was paying ALL it's bills until a couple Aholes hijacked two of their jets, and U was paying all the bills until the government closed down one of it's hubs for a few months.
 
Leave it to T-Bags to try to try to shift the onus from UAL to SWA, as if somehow it is SWA's fault that your management couldn't run a Starbucks successfully.

T-Bags, the world has changed, and you have been left behind.

To paraphrase Darwin- Change or die, but do it quietly.
 
Yeah leave it to TY to open his whole when he hasn't a clue what he's taliking about. I agreed with you TY, the world has changed. Low pay low rent scum at Scab airlines (or at least scab wannabe's right Ty?) have taken over the industry. A-plan's will be a thing of the past. Good pay rates are a thing of the past. Good work rules are a thing of the past. Why? Losers who couldn't get a call from a major (Ty?) whored themselves out to what ever scab outfit would make the payments on his pinto. I responded to a post from a guy who didn't understand the process of BK and thus had a faulty view of UAL's future. I get some low pay loser cracking about the evils of UAL despite the fact his company has been paying salaries for less than half that time. I responded in kind. As for you Ty, I don't expect you to get it. You are clueless enough to call 10 years "ancient history". What percent of Valujet was scab when you showed up Ty? Was that your thing? Wanting to be pals with the scabs? Or did nobody else call? The diff between NWA, UAL and your scab group is that at the first two, scabs came because the piot group was DEFENDING the profession. Your group was built by and FOR scabs. At UAL scabs were paid 75K to be capt and 50K to be an FO, at valuscab, it was 40K and 20K, TEN YEARS LATER. So you just didn't get scabs, you got the LOW RENT scabs. the worst of the worst.
 
I've read a lot of personal insuts on these boards but a Pinto? That's a new low. Shame!

Don't worry Ty, I know you've never even thought of driving a Pinto in your entire life.
 
Dont blame Bush, f--k them if they cant survive, last time I checked this isnt Russia. T-bags you need to stop loving those testicles in your face so much and get some puswa, and do yourself a favor take econ 101.
 
T-Bags said:
Yeah leave it to TY to open his whole when he hasn't a clue what he's taliking about. I agreed with you TY, the world has changed. Low pay low rent scum at Scab airlines (or at least scab wannabe's right Ty?) have taken over the industry. A-plan's will be a thing of the past. Good pay rates are a thing of the past. Good work rules are a thing of the past. Why? Losers who couldn't get a call from a major (Ty?) whored themselves out to what ever scab outfit would make the payments on his pinto. I responded to a post from a guy who didn't understand the process of BK and thus had a faulty view of UAL's future. I get some low pay loser cracking about the evils of UAL despite the fact his company has been paying salaries for less than half that time. I responded in kind. As for you Ty, I don't expect you to get it. You are clueless enough to call 10 years "ancient history". What percent of Valujet was scab when you showed up Ty? Was that your thing? Wanting to be pals with the scabs? Or did nobody else call? The diff between NWA, UAL and your scab group is that at the first two, scabs came because the piot group was DEFENDING the profession. Your group was built by and FOR scabs. At UAL scabs were paid 75K to be capt and 50K to be an FO, at valuscab, it was 40K and 20K, TEN YEARS LATER. So you just didn't get scabs, you got the LOW RENT scabs. the worst of the worst.

Ouch! I love this question, "Why does your company not make money but SWA and Air Tran etc. do?

ONE A/C-SWA, been around 1/3 the time, NO INTERNATIONAL...I would rather be flying and doing what I do then working the PM shift at SWA, divorced and my wife with half my pay...sounds like fun....7 leg days, low income paxs and see you at the bar in 10........just in fun fellows
 
Without a doubt Corporate Culture is set by the founding members; in the case of AirTran this would be the senior pilots of ValueJet. And as we all know--these were SCABS of the airline industry who were willing to work for a virtual airline. Of course the SCABS had burned all other bridges in the "brotherhood" of professional pilots.

ValueJet being a virtual airline required that its pilots pay for training, uniforms, flight bags ect..... A requirement pilots with self respect refused. In addition the F/A, Gate Agents, Ramp workers ect.... were also required to buy uniforms from a company owned by the ValueJet CEO sister. Clearly they were taking advantage of the lower self esteem of the mindset of the founding ValueJet persona.

After the crash of a DC-9 into the Florida Everglades due to the outsource of maintenace there was a huge outcry as the public became aware of the business practice of ValueJet.

As passenger left in droves, ValueJet bought the failing AirTran and dropped the name ValueJet for AirTran to distance itself from the snowballing bad press.

You must understand this Corporate Culture to understand the low self esteem of "Ty".

Ty has a job where the Corporate Culture was founded upon SCAB labor who allowed the Corporation to use them as a profit center, training funds, and low wages.

A new person hired into this system must blend in or leave.

Ty is using several self defense mechanism known as justification and rationalization for his employment at AirTran.

He knows, deep down, that you can't work with sh1t without smelling like it.

Professor Joe Vee
Aerologist
 
Last edited:
ONE A/C-SWA, been around 1/3 the time, NO INTERNATIONAL...I would rather be flying and doing what I do then working the PM shift at SWA, divorced and my wife with half my pay...sounds like fun....7 leg days, low income paxs and see you at the bar in 10........just in fun fellows

Um math check? American has been around for 99 years? I think you'll find that American Airways started in 1926 and American Airlines didn't come on the scene until 1930. I think that having Charles Lindbergh fly your first flight is a neat bit of history - but I am pretty sure that you age as a company has nothing to do with not being able to make money.

As to the rest of it - typical lies and half truths. The problem with this industry is NOT SWA. We actually DO have a retirement plan (BTW it is in MY name and it is NOT company stock) We don't work like dogs (my last pairing was 3 days and 6 legs). Most importantly, I like the people I fly for and with. Maybe you need to haul some bigshot first class folks around so that you can feel important, but I have no problem providing a service to average and ordinary Americans. "God loves the common man, that is why he made so many".

I am glad you love what you do, best of luck in it. But you can shut your collective ignorant pie wholes when it comes to SWA. We are not the problem; for some people we are the solution.
 
463c5922
 
Dude,
that is the funniest thing I've seen all day.



Oh wait, I think you were busting on me.



Shoot.


Oh well still funny.
 
Hey Prof...

Doesn't UAL outsource a bunch of their MX now? So that is just setting them up for a crash? I truly hope not!

Hey Ty... Don't be too put out by T-bags' ranting. Misdirected anger is his hallmark. UAL's poor execution of a flawed business plan and the downturn of the economy should be his target IMO. Oh yeha, isn't this a market driven economy?

From one of his early babbles:

http://forums.flightinfo.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=22739&perpage=25&pagenumber=2

"F-9 Driver,
Just so you understand whats about to happen to you...
1. Starfish is JUST A CODENAME. When we were trying to by U we called each other nifty names like "tarheel" and "yellow jacket". Expect a better name like "rabbit killer".
2. UAL's LCC will have LOWER CASM than FRNT. Yes LOWER. all the while with more leg room, and much better connectivity. I don't anticipate you can keep you costs at our level merely using your current "bypass the de-ice pad" strategy on frosty mornings.
3. UAL plans to match your prices DAILY.
4. I asked Mr. Tilton in a Face to face several months ago if he planed on "killing" FRNT. I pointed out that back in early 1998 UAL had FRNT literally days from Chapt 11 and backed off under the threat of a lawsuit (and apparently political pressure). I also pointed out that while UAL was cutting capacity to match demand FRNT was adding capacity AND still complaining that OTHERS weren't cutting enough. Mr Tilton, without hesitating, insisted that he had every intention of running you out of business, lawsuits be !@#$!@. (BTW, it's hard to sue a lower cost, higher quality provider for preditory pricing when they are doing it at a profit). Incidently, I also asked him if he would consider a program whereby we allowed other airliners pax, on a space avail basis to fly UAL instead. seemed to me it would siphon away your highest priced ticket's to us without having to even inventory the seats. Not saying he listened to me, but somebody else must have came up with the idea to. Feel free to try to siphon ours away with your clubs...."


Should have stuck with your codename T-bag. WTF is a Ted? Maybe mention that to Glenn next time you have a face to face. Ask him where he wants the deck chairs lined up while you're at it.

BTW - another misguided pundit is looking at some big problems at 'ol untied. Check out http://www.PlaneBusiness.com/ . Its worth the price to get it every week. Here's an excerpt;

"Speaking of information, a couple of comments about United Airlines before we talk about other things this week, because I think the situation here merits some attention.

One, you probably are aware by now that the airline has asked for yet another delay in presenting its restructuring plan to the bankruptcy court.

This request for a delay comes after airline officials just recently said that the airline was still on track to emerge from bankruptcy protection in June. Crucial to meeting that timeline was the fact the airline was scheduled to present a restructuring plan no later than March 8.

Monday, the airline asked the bankruptcy court to delay this date until June 30.

However, oddly enough, United also apparently told the court that "as of this filing" the company remains "on track to emerge from Chapter 11 during the first half of this year."

Now, how they hope to manage this hat trick beats the heck out of me.

While the excuses given for the delay were the usual (no need to rush this, not unusual given a bankruptcy of this size), my sources tell me there are other problems at the airline that are also pushing the request.

Simply put, the airline is running short of cash. And last week, the airline basically busied itself in a frenzied attempt to raise more cash.

From what I am told, the airline is in danger of not meeting its February debtor-in-possession covenants. As of last week, I am told the airline was running about $40 million to $50 million short, according to projections.

You may have noticed that the airline launched a fairly major sale last week. The intent? To raise cash.

But, according to what I hear, the effort did not produce as much cash as the airline had hoped. As a result, as one person told me, "It's pretty much a crisis mode around here."

This is not a small thing.

Creditors who are already upset at the airline and its lack of openness about what it plans to do as part of its restructuring could take such a situation and use it to their advantage. In addition, as I understand it, a number of not-so-nice things would be put into motion with a default of the DIP loan agreement, including a much higher cost of borrowing for the airline.

How does the cash outlook look for March? Not good there either from what I understand.

Interestingly, Moody's, the debt-rating firm, issued a note Monday in which they basically withdrew all of its ratings assigned to UAL debt. The company is clearly not happy with the situation at United, as it said that while some recovery could be expected for owners of certain EETC instruments, for example, that "the result will be highly dependent upon the value of the aircraft collateral, the structure of the individual transaction and the outcome of what have become prolonged discussions with United. Completion of negotiations has been repeatedly delayed and the company has determined that it is in the best interests that negotiations regarding both interim and final payment terms be kept confidential. United reached agreement with the bankruptcy court to keep related documents sealed."

The note concluded, "With a lack of consistently available information, Moody's is unable to maintain current ratings for these transactions."


Meanwhile, Ted, one of management's answers to the airline's financial problems takes flight this week."
 
ivauir said:
Dude,
that is the funniest thing I've seen all day.



Oh wait, I think you were busting on me.



Shoot.


Oh well still funny.

ivauir,

It wasn't directed toward you. You just happened to be posting the same time as I was. It was more directed toward some of the previous exchanges.
 
You are WAY off trying to spin it like AirTran is just a bunch of scab pilots. I've been at AirTran about 6 months and I think it is an awesome company with great people. I would say that most guys I fly with are in their early 30's and are excellent captains.

And the best thing about this place is- They're PROFITABLE! That word takes on a whole new meaning after being kicked to the curb to fend for yourself. Don't take my word for it, listen to the latest from management. It is truly motivating to be here. We will be hiring between 150-210 pilots this year alone. We only have 830 guys on the property now. Do the math.

http://www.airtranairways.com/aboutus/investor/index.jsp

I did the UAL thing and they furloughed 2,172 of us. I've been gone for almost 2 years now with about 1600+ to get the recall notice in front of me. How long should I have waited it out for UAL to call me back? It's not like I have a wife and a few kids depending on me to support them or anything......

Let's see, UAL has stated no recalls in 04. Assuming they recall based on attrition starting in 05, it will be another 5 years or so from that point until they get to me. That will be a total of 8 years on furlough. And I've got another 600 junior to me on the list. If I took the recall at UAL I would be going back to the most junior 737 position as an F.O. 8 years from now!!!! (Just in time for the next recession!) By that time I will have been a captain here at AirTran for 5 years! I will also be on the top half of the seniority list.

There are many furloughees here from the majors as well as a strong regional airline presence. We are very grateful for the opportunity to fly again. So to classify us as a bunch of scabs is totally false. From what I remember, UAL had a ton of scabs from the 85 strike. I spent over 7 years as an Alpa member for 2 different carriers, pretty far from being a scab.
 
Ty Webb said:
Leave it to T-Bags to try to try to shift the onus from UAL to SWA, as if somehow it is SWA's fault that your management couldn't run a Starbucks successfully.


Quiet Ty, you'll give someone in Chicago the idea that UAL should be running a coffee chain. How many of us can recall the Allegis disaster of the 80's? That was when UAL management decided to buy hotel chains and a rental car company so they could provide one stop shopping for travellers. Of course it failed miserably and how much money did they lose?

Then there was the US Airways debacle. How much money did UAL lose on that?

Oh and what about Avolar? How many millions got sunk into the ill fated fractional jet venture before it flopped as well?

Now we have Ted. Once again management strays from the core business and tries to reinvent Shuttle. Ahhh Shuttle. I remember when they started up Shuttle to put SWA out of business. I even remeber the ads and how they gloated over the fact that they offered assigned seating. I remember UAL folks telling me how SWA was going to be put out of business.

Yes I can clearly see the connection between SWA and the failure of UAL. Herb Kelleher must be able to telepathically influence UAL management into making bad decisions. That must be it.


SWA is successful because they have a simple and repeatable business plan. They treat their employees well and offer good customer service. Right now SWA pilots enjoy good QOL, competetive pay, and some have even made out pretty well on the stock options.
 
XUAL, might I suggest you change your name and avitor? Or do you still wish to be associated with UAL? BTW was UAL "profitable" when you got hired? How come AT has a much lower PE than all the other LCC's? Could it be the smart money knows more than you? Have you checked the balance sheet?

"I spent over 7 years as an Alpa member for 2 different carriers, pretty far from being a scab"

Wow so you paid dues for a few years, and when times got rough, you ran off to a scab carrier... You are right, UAL does have scabs, many had way more than your "7 years" of ALPA membership. But you are correct, it will be quite some time until you return to UAL, seems there are far too many dudes with no other marketable skills willing to undercut the cost with lower wages, so the growth may stay at the LCC's (with labor being the largest cost...) carriers. You made your bed, and you will be the reason for your extended furlough. Something makes me think that you will climbing over other guys to get back to old UAL as quickly as possible.


"It's not like I have a wife and a few kids depending on me to support them or anything......"

Heard that from quite a few FQ-50's. Pathetic
 

Latest resources

Back
Top