Hi D8,
The ATSB is very clear, "The borrower must demonstrate that it has incurred or is incurring losses as result of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks."
I personally don't feel that all of UAL's problems were created on Sept. 11
The economy was shifting prior to 9/11 and one could eaily argue that UAL's problems have have as much to do with James Goodwin's poor mgt.
Could their problems be related to the Tilton's continued poor mgt. The current price of fuel, the increased competition of LCC's, a US economy, a weak US dollar. yada yada. If your answer is, yes, then by defination UAL is not entitled to the ATSB gurantee.
Let's try to remember it is 2004. They have been operating under the protection of Ch11 for a year and a half. While the events of September 11 were tramatic. It's hard to pin the demise of UAL completly on those events.
I also don't believe that the LCC's and majors are not getting treated fairly, when the government offers to back a loan based upon the events almost 3 years ago. Traffic has rebounded people are flying again. If not for the current price of fuel many an airline would be operating in the black.
Morally, I don't feel that government money should be used to support weak mgt. UAL had it's chance and they were denied. What does it tell you when the ATSB comes out publicly trashing your business plan?
It's a capitalistic society, jungle rules apply. I don't recall the government offering to bail out Pan Am when they were burdened with the same things that are hurting UAL today. Funny thing, Pan Am has to divest London and the Pacific for exactly the same reasons. Yet, today we are concerned with bailing out UAL. It just doesn't seem right. I also feel that UAL would never sell the Pacific. London maybe but not the Pacific. It would truly mean the end of UAL. All you need to do is look at USAir, even in their curent financial situtation, they still have managed to hold onto all of their assets.
Do I feel sorry for UAL, absolutly. Like most of us on this board, I have friends at UAL. Would it I like to see them recover, Yes. But it's not up to me. If they get it so be it. I can live with it either way.
But in no way is the American tax payer left footing the bill. I fact as shown with the Chrysler loan, the tax payer could actually make some money.
The ATSB is very clear, "The borrower must demonstrate that it has incurred or is incurring losses as result of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks."
I personally don't feel that all of UAL's problems were created on Sept. 11
The economy was shifting prior to 9/11 and one could eaily argue that UAL's problems have have as much to do with James Goodwin's poor mgt.
Could their problems be related to the Tilton's continued poor mgt. The current price of fuel, the increased competition of LCC's, a US economy, a weak US dollar. yada yada. If your answer is, yes, then by defination UAL is not entitled to the ATSB gurantee.
Let's try to remember it is 2004. They have been operating under the protection of Ch11 for a year and a half. While the events of September 11 were tramatic. It's hard to pin the demise of UAL completly on those events.
I also don't believe that the LCC's and majors are not getting treated fairly, when the government offers to back a loan based upon the events almost 3 years ago. Traffic has rebounded people are flying again. If not for the current price of fuel many an airline would be operating in the black.
Morally, I don't feel that government money should be used to support weak mgt. UAL had it's chance and they were denied. What does it tell you when the ATSB comes out publicly trashing your business plan?
It's a capitalistic society, jungle rules apply. I don't recall the government offering to bail out Pan Am when they were burdened with the same things that are hurting UAL today. Funny thing, Pan Am has to divest London and the Pacific for exactly the same reasons. Yet, today we are concerned with bailing out UAL. It just doesn't seem right. I also feel that UAL would never sell the Pacific. London maybe but not the Pacific. It would truly mean the end of UAL. All you need to do is look at USAir, even in their curent financial situtation, they still have managed to hold onto all of their assets.
Do I feel sorry for UAL, absolutly. Like most of us on this board, I have friends at UAL. Would it I like to see them recover, Yes. But it's not up to me. If they get it so be it. I can live with it either way.
But in no way is the American tax payer left footing the bill. I fact as shown with the Chrysler loan, the tax payer could actually make some money.
Last edited:
