UAL Aircraft to be Repossesed This Week?

[h25b]

Ummmm.....no, you're wrong. UAL could have afforded to pay the rates that were being asked for by the lessors. However, it did not make financial sense for the company to pay the rates being asked for, so the planes are being returned to the lessors, per the bankruptcy code. There IS a difference between repossession and returning aircraft under bankruptcy law.

Believe me, it's nothing personal... I just shake my head when people try and make me believe that simple economics somehow doesn't apply to the airlines. United went out and leased these aircraft under set terms per contract, not unlike me going out and leasing my wife's minivan (cool ride, eh ?) ... Now economic conditions have changed throughout the industry and they can no longer afford to pay what obviously the leasing company has established as fair market value. So they have two options...

1. Make their payment as promised under the established lease agreement, or...

2. Turn them back in, get them repo'd, or whatever other politically correct term we can all agree upon.

Like the other guy said, if the planes weren't being pulled away from them UAL would not have spent all of the time in court trying to block exactly that... Your arguement is strictly symantics... Please explain me why this leasing company should have to let UAL pay a lease rate below what they originally agreed upon (AND BELOW WHAT THEY COULD LEASE THEM FOR TO SOMEONE ELSE)... I guess all the businesses dealing with United are expected to take one for the team.

So in conclusion, you're telling me that United was stupid enough to become "PLANE POOR" and now it's time for everyone else in the aviation industry to be at a disadvantage. If that's the case I should have leased that Ferrari after all because by your logic it makes sense AND is fair to the bank...

 

[Echopapa]

A better illustration of your point (since yours was poorly made) would be as follows. H25B's budget has enough "slop" in it to be able to afford the $2500/month payment on a (used) Ferrari if he so chooses. However, if he/she chose to buy that car and make that payment every month, he/she would not have enough left over, for example, to put into his 401K or to have a little extra if an unexpected expense comes up. So even though H25B could buy that Ferrari if he really wanted to, it makes more financial sense for H25B to not be "car poor" and to buy the Civic instead. Further, since a few other "car owners" are having financially difficulties themselves, perhaps a long term deal or alternative for that Ferrari could be found down the road if a little patience is exercied?

H25B was right on. United does not have any extra money and can't afford these planes. When was the last time United brought home enough money to pay the bills?

 

[spinup]

You can paint that pig anyway you like. Bottom line, the aircraft are getting yanked from the UAL fleet. If UAL just wanted to "return" them, I would of guessed UAL wouldn't of bothered with all the legal fees fighting the "repossesion", excuse me return in the first place.

When your company has to start canceling routes (i.e. cutting off revenue) due to a reposs...er return, it is not a normal change of hands under bankruptcy law.

LOL!!! This genius couldn’t be less insightful so far as UAL is concerned. For your education, UAL had secured lease terms with the lenders months ago; for these very airplanes. The creditor's committee felt that UAL was offering too much and rejected the terms. In this instance, UAL management was spot on and the CC was lacking. In the end, and in this case, it doesn’t matter if UAL can afford the airplanes, what matters is what the CC approves. For someone employed by an airline that has been drug through BK twice I would think you would have a better comprehension of facts. Guess not.

 

[Boeingman]

LOL!!! This genius couldn’t be less insightful so far as UAL is concerned. For your education, UAL had secured lease terms with the lenders months ago; for these very airplanes. The creditor's committee felt that UAL was offering too much and rejected the terms. In this instance, UAL management was spot on and the CC was lacking. In the end, and in this case, it doesn’t matter if UAL can afford the airplanes, what matters is what the CC approves. For someone employed by an airline that has been drug through BK twice I would think you would have a better comprehension of facts. Guess not.

It is too bad the link for the ruling from the court is no longer available. I will try and find it though because it makes your comment absurd.

Bankruptcy twice? Yes, but I believe now the time UAL has not spent in it's Bankruptcy has exceeded the total time CAL was in for two. At least we had a plan of reorganization and emerged. Something I have yet to see UAL accomplish.

Doesn't matter to me though. You can keep hiding behind that cloak of denial all you want.

 

[klhoard]

.
.
.
Maybe they can get a good deal on some of our 727-100's. . . .
.
.
.

 

[Diesel-9]

Just heared on the news, four of the 767's were repo'd today

 

[skykid]

Just heared on the news, four of the 767's were repo'd today

Holy Moly!! How did they do it? Did the repo take place in South America? Please give some details and a source for your news. This is great news.

 

[ualdriver]

Believe me, it's nothing personal... I just shake my head when people try and make me believe that simple economics somehow doesn't apply to the airlines. United went out and leased these aircraft under set terms per contract, not unlike me going out and leasing my wife's minivan (cool ride, eh ?) ... Now economic conditions have changed throughout the industry and they can no longer afford to pay what obviously the leasing company has established as fair market value. So they have two options...
1. Make their payment as promised under the established lease agreement, or...
2. Turn them back in, get them repo'd, or whatever other politically correct term we can all agree upon.

Yeah I agree with you so far. I never denied the above. In fact, we still have about 20% of our fleet to negotiate under those very same terms. I'm not trying to be politically correct. The planes weren't repossessed. They were returned to the lessor because the lessor found a better deal somewhere also, or at least claims to, than UAL was willing to pay. Under bankruptcy protection, UAL can reject leases, and they did.

Like the other guy said, if the planes weren't being pulled away from them UAL would not have spent all of the time in court trying to block exactly that... Your arguement is strictly symantics... Please explain me why this leasing company should have to let UAL pay a lease rate below what they originally agreed upon (AND BELOW WHAT THEY COULD LEASE THEM FOR TO SOMEONE ELSE)... I guess all the businesses dealing with United are expected to take one for the team.

They shouldn't have to. And they don't. That's why they took them back. All businesses dealing with United have "taken one for the team." They don't have to, but they did. That's their choice and that's the cost of doing business with the airlines, I guess. If they don't like it, they can go elsewhere, just like these 767 lessors did.

So in conclusion, you're telling me that United was stupid enough to become "PLANE POOR" and now it's time for everyone else in the aviation industry to be at a disadvantage. If that's the case I should have leased that Ferrari after all because by your logic it makes sense AND is fair to the bank...

United was stupid enough to do many things, I'll tell you. How about that? I'm also telling you that UAL is going to take advantage (and has) of EVERY aspect of the bankruptcy process, just like those before us who have cost us billions in dollars since 1978 while they went through their bankruptcies. If it takes 3 years and it's legal to do so- so be it. If the rest of the industry is at a disadvantage........well.......I guess that's their problem just like it has been our problem for the past 27 years.

In my example, buying the Ferrari is a great deal for the bank. The bank could care less if you're "car poor" because you can't afford anything else except your car payment. They only care that you make your payment every month. It's not a good deal for you, however, especially when some Ferrari's(or similar) may be coming to market in the near future at cheaper rates....

 

[spinup]

It is too bad the link for the ruling from the court is no longer available. I will try and find it though because it makes your comment absurd.

Bankruptcy twice? Yes, but I believe now the time UAL has not spent in it's Bankruptcy has exceeded the total time CAL was in for two. At least we had a plan of reorganization and emerged. Something I have yet to see UAL accomplish.

Doesn't matter to me though. You can keep hiding behind that cloak of denial all you want.

Cloak of denial, interesting you direct that to me. Your grasp of facts ends with the front page of the USA Today. You read a web link and offer a shallow and uneducated opinion. Your information without foundation is narrow and worthless. Post your link; it does nothing to further your point.



It seems to me CAL's plan for success is closely related to UAL's. Cut costs. As a pilot group at CAL you've endorsed this course though concessions, yet you apply it in a different light to UAL. In the end, you'll continue to be surprised at every turn (as is proven by your track record) valuing your opinions over fact. That’s your world.

 

[h25b]

O.K. that post seemed a little more reasonable to me... Not that you care.. How ever you want to paint it, it's NOT a good thing..