UA furlough numbers released

[dalav8tor]

How many high paying jobs do you think are being denied to our fellow americans who could fly on our ac and buy american goods because we wont drill?

 

[UALjan15]

Why do people keep referring to nuclear as a way to reduce our dependence on oil?

Only 3 % of our electricity is produced by oil fired plants.

Should be 0% for sure, but nuclear, wind, solar ect.. will not reduce our dependence on oil. Try not to confuse the issue.

You're thinking in today's terms. Of the various ways to rework the gas or diesel piston engine, many involve increased use of electricity. Plug-in hybrids, electric cars, and hydrogen cars will all put a strain on an electric power grid that is not prepared to handle it. That is where nuclear could come in, though the extra burden is going to come way before any new nuke plants could be brought online. I say build them anyway. It's not like we're going to have too much energy!

Personally, I'm shooting for a plug-in hybrid that is going to be recharged by solar panels on my roof. Hope my HOA likes them!

 

[General Lee]

Are you sure about that?????

Oil is not coming back down so the companies will have to adjust.

Gas could fall to $2 if Congress acts, analysts say
Limiting speculation would push prices to fundamental level, lawmakers told
By Rex Nutting & Michael Kitchen, MarketWatch
Last update: 4:24 p.m. EDT June 23, 2008

WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) -- The price of retail gasoline could fall by half, to around $2 a gallon, within 30 days of passage of a law to limit speculation in energy-futures markets, four energy analysts told Congress on Monday.

Testifying to the House Energy and Commerce Committee, Michael Masters of Masters Capital Management said that the price of oil would quickly drop closer to its marginal cost of around $65 to $75 a barrel, about half the current $135.

Fadel Gheit of Oppenheimer & Co., Edward Krapels of Energy Security Analysis and Roger Diwan of PFC Energy Consultants agreed with Masters' assessment at a hearing on proposed legislation to limit speculation in futures markets.

Krapels said that it wouldn't even take 30 days to drive prices lower, as fund managers quickly liquidated their positions in futures markets.

"Record oil prices are inflated by speculation and not justified by market fundamentals," according to Gheit. "Based on supply and demand fundamentals, crude-oil prices should not be above $60 per barrel."

Futures trading in London has not been a major factor in rising oil prices, testified Sir Bob Reid, chairman of the Chairman of London-based ICE Futures Europe. Rising prices are largely a function of fundamental supply and demand, not manipulation or speculation, he said.

"Energy speculation has become a growth industry and it is time for the government to intervene," said Rep. John Dingell, D-Mich., chairman of the full committee. "We need to consider a full range of options to counter this rapacious speculation." It was Dingell's strongest statement yet on the role of speculators.

There has been much discussion recently about how big a role speculators have been playing in the sharp rise in energy prices, though no consensus has emerged on this point.

Dingell introduced a bill on June 11 that would ask the Energy Department to gather the facts on energy prices, including the role played by speculators.

There are two kinds of speculators in the futures markets, Masters said. Traditional speculators are those who need to hedge because they actually take physical possession of the commodities. Index speculators, on the other hand, are merely allocating a portion of their portfolio to commodity futures.

Index speculation damages price-discovery mechanisms provided by futures markets, Masters added

The committee will likely consider legislation that would rein in index speculation by imposing higher-margin requirements; setting position limits for speculators; requiring more disclosure of positions; and preventing pension funds and investment banks from owning commodities.

Both major presidential candidates have supported closing loopholes that encourage speculation in the energy markets.

However, other witnesses said that pure speculators have had little impact on energy prices, which have doubled in the past year to about $135 per barrel. Both Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman have dismissed the impact of speculators on prices paid by consumers.

Speculators now account for about 70% of all benchmark crude trading on the New York Mercantile Exchange, up from 37% in 2000, said Rep. Bart Stupak, D-Mich., chairman of the investigations subcommittee. Stupak introduced a bill on Friday that would limit index speculation.

There has been much discussion recently about how big a role speculators have been playing in the sharp rise in energy prices, though no consensus has emerged on this point.

Congress, however, has grown increasingly concerned over speculative investors' role in the energy market in comparison with those buying futures contracts to hedge against risk from price changes. Lawmakers are expected to consider legislation to set strict limits -- or in some cases, an outright ban -- on speculative trading in energy futures in some markets.

Dingell is looking into any legal loopholes that may have contributed to speculation in energy markets. In 1991, according to documents provided by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission to the committee's investigators, the agency authorized the first exemption from position limits for swap dealers with no physical commodity exposure. This began what Dingell said was "a process that has enabled investment banks to accumulate enormous positions in commodity markets."

Is Congress barking up the wrong tree?

Neal Ryan, manager at Ryan Oil & Gas Partners, said that if Congress develops regulations to cut back speculative trading, speculation will just find a new home.

"Speculation is the root of capitalism," he said. "If the speculation is forced out of the U.S. exchanges, it'll simply show up on other exchanges that are OTC like the ICE, or new exchanges will pop up to allow for the spec trades to continue functioning."

Ryan said he does see a reason for Congress to look at eliminating aspects such as allowing West Texas intermediate crude oil futures to trade on foreign markets and the "Enron loophole," but "these exchanges are currently functioning as they are supposed to in a free marketplace."

The creation of a comprehensive U.S. energy policy that tackles issues of increasing domestic supply and reining in consumer demand via conservation should be Congress' focus, Ryan said. "Instead we're on bended knee begging the Saudis to put more oil on the market and talking about shutting down spec trades."

Rex Nutting is Washington bureau chief of MarketWatch.

Michael Kitchen is a copy editor for MarketWatch and is based in New York. Nate Becker contributed to this report from San Francisco.



Bye Bye--General Lee

 

[General Lee]

Here's another article for you.....

Oil Speculation Draws Scrutiny
House Panel Told
Curbs on Trading
Could Ease Prices
By IAN TALLEY and GREGORY MEYER -- WSJ
June 24, 2008

WASHINGTON -- Lawmakers eager to curb speculation in oil markets got support Monday from witnesses who told a House subcommittee that oil prices could fall sharply if Congress put strict limits on trading in energy futures by investment banks, pension funds and other financial investors.

But officials of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission disputed the findings of a Congressional study that concluded 70% of trading in certain key oil futures contracts is now speculative. And leaders of the world's two leading oil exchanges, the New York Mercantile Exchange and the ICE Futures Europe, based in New York and London, respectively, argued against increasing the amount of capital investors would have to put down to buy futures contracts, saying such restrictions would drive commerce offshore.

"Speculators" in the oil futures market have become a prime target on Capitol Hill, as lawmakers look to respond to voter anxiety about soaring motor fuel prices. A hearing Monday before the House Energy and Commerce subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations highlighted fundamental disputes over the role of financial investors in the recent spike in oil prices.

Lawmakers in both the House and Senate are aggressively exploring ways to rein in what they believe is excessive speculation driving skyrocketing oil prices.

Many legislators are seeking to curtail -- or, in some cases, outright ban -- swaps and bilateral trading in the energy futures markets, and set limits on investments on foreign exchanges operating in the U.S.


House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Rep. John Dingell, (D., Mich.), said lawmakers should set firm limits on the size of energy speculators' positions, require full disclosure of all energy trading from investment banks; and prevent pension funds from investing in commodities as they seek to diversify their holdings.

To back that view, an energy subcommittee investigating the role of speculation in energy prices heard from a panel of energy-market participants who said crude-oil prices would fall with stricter regulation, with retail gasoline that's now over $4 a gallon following suit.

"Prices would probably drop over a reasonably short period of time back to somewhere closer to the marginal production cost of oil, to $65 to $70...and I think gas prices would reflect that in a relatively short order," said Mike Masters, a hedge-fund manager testifying before a Congressional panel probing speculation in the energy markets.

Benchmark light, sweet crude futures on the New York Mercantile Exchange were trading Monday just below $138 a barrel.

Fadel Gheit, managing director and senior oil analyst at Oppenheimer & Co., said prices could come down to a range of $45 to $60 a barrel.

Edward Krapels, a special adviser at the consultancy Energy Security Analysis Inc., said he would expect the retreat from energy markets to be fairly fast.

"I think the amount of speculation is really substantial, [and] I don't think it would take 30 days after the President signed the bill, it would happen more quickly than that...as soon as Congress passed it, commodity funds would withdraw their positions," he said.

Mr. Dingell and others at the subcommittee meeting said Congress should consider forcing speculators to put up margin, or collateral, worth 50% of the value of energy futures in which they seek to trade. Today margins requirements for most traders in oil futures are often in single-digit percentages of the value of their commodity holdings.

In written testimony prepared for the hearing, the chairman of ICE Futures Europe, owned by IntercontinentialExchange Inc., rejected the idea of "artificially increasing" margin levels, saying it would "drive business either to futures markets in other jurisdictions where there are no such constraints, or to off-exchange [over-the-counter] marketplaces where clearing is not available."

The Energy and Commerce subcommittee also Monday unveiled new data it said came from the government watchdog agency, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, that showed speculators have increased their share of futures contracts to about 70% in April from 37% in 2000.

But the CFTC sought to counter that presentation. In a separate note, the commission said the 70% share includes both long positions, or bets on a price gain, and short positions, or bets on a fall, held by swap dealers and speculators. Swap dealers as a whole have a close to neutral position in the crude-oil markets, the CFTC said, meaning they are almost equally long and short in the marketplace.

The CFTC has traditionally said that speculators only represent around 30% of the market, but after lawmakers asked the agency to reclassify swaps dealers as speculators, and not commercial hedgers such as airlines, the ratio dramatically flips.

Acting CFTC Chairman Walter Lukken said a large portion of those swaps deals would be for commercial businesses looking to hedge fuel costs. "Morgan Stanley manages all of United Airlines' risk," Mr. Lukken told reporters on the sidelines of the subcommittee hearing. The acting chairman said that the CFTC's old data showed that speculation wasn't pushing prices up, "But I think what would be admitted is that our data could be improved."

Write to Ian Talley at [email protected] and Gregory Meyer at [email protected]


Bye Bye--General Lee

 

[UALjan15]

I think the military can help the airlines quite a bit if they decide to push their own alternative fuels program faster. There is quite a bit of easily available coal that can be converted to a liquid jet fuel in mass quantities (like Germany did in WWII). It costs a lot to get the plants built and the process started (I believe the article I read said the government was paying well over $20 a gallon for their test fuels), but the price will come down well below current jet fuel once the plants are built and humming along. It may not be a "green" way of doing things, but it may be a way that the government could help to save the airlines by green lighting the military to use mostly alternate fuel ASAP and getting the FAA to green light the fuel for the airlines also. With demand comes the plants to supply it. Good luck United.

If this coal-to-jet fuel process still needs to be developed, then why not instead develop a greener alternative? I understand your point if all we had to do was shovel the stuff into the belly of the plane and go fly, but there appears to be a major effort ahead to make this a reality.

What if we could make jet fuel from various oils and fats that would dramatically reduce both our carbon footprint and our dependence on foreign oil? I know the typical anti-biofuels arguments--too much resources required to grow the crops to make the process efficient. People much smarter than us are perfecting methods of transforming anything from algae oil to chicken grease to liposuction waste into the bio equivelant of JP-8. Check out some of the research: http://www.diversified-energy.com/index.cfm?s_webAction=centia

 

[UALjan15]

However, other witnesses said that pure speculators have had little impact on energy prices, which have doubled in the past year to about $135 per barrel. Both Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman have dismissed the impact of speculators on prices paid by consumers.

Speculators now account for about 70% of all benchmark crude trading on the New York Mercantile Exchange, up from 37% in 2000, said Rep. Bart Stupak, D-Mich., chairman of the investigations subcommittee. Stupak introduced a bill on Friday that would limit index speculation.

There has been much discussion recently about how big a role speculators have been playing in the sharp rise in energy prices, though no consensus has emerged on this point.


Bye Bye--General Lee

OK, so we really don't know for sure how much affect speculation has had. Here's one quick way to find out that doesn't require an act of congress: Open up the strategic oil reserves in a major way. Flood the market with oversupply for a bit, and watch the price of oil. My thoughts are that we're seeing an investment bubble, just like others we've seen. All we need to do to pop this bubble is to reverse, even temporarily, the momentum that has been established over the past year. After the oil speculators get caught in an oil-price freefall and lose their a$$, maybe they'll go onto the next big thing. We just need to keep the oversupply going for a couple of options periods and we'll see them scurrying like roaches under a flashlight.

If it doesn't work, we haven't done anything irreversible, and there's a pretty good chance it might help. I say "bombs away" on the ICE!

 

[Fly4hire]

GL,

We agree on this - we are being "Enron'd" on a national and global scale, and a few are getting rich beyond their wildest imaginations at the cost of decimating the economy. Better pay attention to who created and who has supported the current legislation as it stands.

We are being fleeced on an unprecedented scale

 

[gromgutten]

I thought this thread was about United, and not about a kindergarten quarrel most of you know nothing about...

 

[414Flyer]

And destroy the coastline for two years worth of oil? I don't think so. We need to reduce our consumption of oil, not drill for more. There's enough in that ********************hole of a desert for all of us without drilling the in the oceans surrounding the US.

Oil destroys our coastlines? Funny, lots of countries deemed more environmentally friendly drill offshore, like Canada and Norway.

Sounds like you are perfectly willing to outsource and offshore those oil jobs to other countries too, which is interesting in itself in a thread about pilot jobs being lost.

And how much money leaves the US economy to go to other countries to buy their oil? And how much would speculation dampen, if it looked like the US was actually serious about its own production?

 

[bizicmo]

We just need to start producing hydrogen by the boat load and cut oil out completely.

 

[OHGOON]

Ahhh, rationalization. The principal form of exercise for today's eco-weenie on the go.

"I see a lot of stupid people in the world. I could scam them out of their money, because if I don't, someone else will! Why not make things better for myself?"

Maybe if you quit flying, others would be inspired by your conviction. Others would then quit to go tend sheep or weave baskets. Then there would be a lack of pilots, and airlines would have to cancel flights. Seats would get expensive on the remaining flights, and fewer people would fly. Eventually, there would then be fewer airplanes, and thus fewer emissions.

Weak. Maybe you should stop crapping in your toilet. It's more "carbon friendly" to just hold it all in.


Nu

Thank God for auto-pilots!

What exactly is an eco-weenie? Is that like an organic hotdog?

All those "stupid" people you see all the time - try to m@sturb@te with something besides your mirror, maybe that will help.

No wonder so many of your ilk have trouble with the concept of evolution, you have very little personal proof of it indeed!

 

[Dogwood]

I hope the gummers really enjoy going to work. They better as alot of the young folks will have to leave.

I find it absurd and almost unbelieveable that people aged 60 get to stay while those with a mortgage and two kids are given a pinkslip and a "good-luck sport" as they wonder where the next paycheck will come from.

How did it come to this??


Best of luck to all those who are going to be affected by this!!


Sincerely,

dane

Don't forget many of those lost most of their retirement in BK, and now are scrambling to make a few bucks to make up for that.

While the young guy still has time.

Believe me that an age 60 guy/gal, who has been doing this for 30+ years would love to leave now, but many can't financially.

At 59 you look at things differently.

 

[Jonny Sacko]

yea, you keep justifying your moves. It doesn't matter, that's the scab mentality. Great job, from the backs of your peers. Well, I guess we're not really YOUR peers. Good job, keep screwing everyone possible, you know "nobody looks out for number one".

 

[eaglesview]

yea, you keep justifying your moves. It doesn't matter, that's the scab mentality. Great job, from the backs of your peers. Well, I guess we're not really YOUR peers. Good job, keep screwing everyone possible, you know "nobody looks out for number one".

What a joke, try to catch up to the realities of the 21st century

 

[OurMoney1]

ALPA strikes again

ALPA had to support the age 65 rule and now the unemployment lines will be filling up with pilots, that is really wrong. Now I wonder if they will pay your mortgage and your kids tuition.

For all the money you send them each month, it would be nice if occasionally they saw the big picture.

Good Luck.......