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

UAL Article

  • Thread starter Thread starter Mugs
  • Start date Start date
  • Watchers Watchers 2

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

Mugs

Well-known member
Joined
May 14, 2003
Posts
500
By Melissa Allison
Tribune staff reporter
Published December 10, 2003

As United Airlines passed the one-year anniversary of its bankruptcy filing Tuesday, the carrier was close to securing $2 billion in financing commitments that would help ensure its timely exit from bankruptcy reorganization.

Agreements with J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. and Citigroup Inc. could be signed in the next few days, according to sources close to the deal, and such commitments should significantly bolster United's chances of obtaining a loan guarantee from the federal government.

United parent UAL Corp. could approach the government as early as next week asking for a loan guarantee, sources said.

"This is one of the best managed restructurings I've ever been associated with," said Bill Repko, head of J.P. Morgan's restructuring group, who confirmed a deal is close.

An airline spokeswoman declined to comment on the matter.

Should United obtain government backing, it would be on track to emerge from bankruptcy in mid-2004 as planned. United filed for Chapter 11 protection from creditors on Dec. 9, 2002, and has been working on its reorganization plan.

The banks are not tying their loan commitment to United's ability to receive relief from Congress or the Internal Revenue Service for United's underfunded pension plans, sources said.

"United will resolve the pension issues. It's simply a matter of timing," said United spokeswoman Jean Medina.

J.P. Morgan and Citigroup are willing to finance $400 million independently, requiring the government to back 80 percent of the $2 billion loan, or $1.6 billion, sources said.

Typically the government guarantees 90 percent of such loans, which in United's case would be $1.8 billion.

Taking a 20 percent risk is a vote of confidence from the banks, said Michael Kayman, a restructuring consultant in Chicago.

"That signifies a belief by the lenders that United has a workable business plan," Kayman said.

Chicago-based Bank One Corp. also is expected to become a lender in the deal, although details of that arrangement have not been completed. A Bank One spokeswoman said the bank is "supportive of United, and we would expect to continue to support them in their exit financing."

A year ago, United lacked such support.

Shortly before the airline filed for bankruptcy, the Air Transportation Stabilization Board, a group formed after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks to help carriers weather business losses, said United's business plan was deficient and declined to guarantee a loan for the Elk Grove Township-based company.

Since then, two of the board's three members have been replaced.

And United, which had independent backing for only 10 percent of the loan it wanted, has undergone a painful restructuring, including eliminating 21 percent of its employees and 34 percent of its salaries and related costs.

The company also has cut costs by renegotiating terms of leases and loans. And to save money on its shorter routes, the carrier is depending more heavily on regional carrier partners and has launched its own low-cost carrier called Ted.

Some critics say the company has not cut enough fat; others say its strategy lacks innovation.

Ultimately, it will be up to the stabilization board to decide whether United's new business plan and the support of J.P. Morgan and Citigroup are strong enough incentives to back the nation's second-largest airline.

Federal rules require the company to fund its pension plans with $4.8 billion over five years, most of it over the next three years. The airline has asked the IRS for a waiver to spread out about $2.4 billion of the early payments over the entire five years.

United officials and unions, along with other airlines, are lobbying Congress heavily for measures that would change the interest rate calculation for the pension obligations.

Like many companies, United also wants federal legislation that would enable it to pay the obligation over a longer period.

But lawmakers finished their work for the year on Tuesday without approving any pension relief, saying they would take the matter up in 2004.

United officials have said that the stabilization board last year cited the pension situation as an issue that needed to be resolved before it would guarantee a loan.

Sources said the airline's business plan takes into account various scenarios regarding pension funding, and that United's strong cash flow and potential government relief satisfied its bank lenders.

United's cash position is growing by roughly $7 million a day, compared with a daily cash burn of $7 million one year ago.


Copyright © 2003, Chicago Tribune
 
---"This is one of the best restructurings I've ever been associated with," said Bill Repko, head of JP Morgan's restructuring group, who confirmed a deal is close.

---Take a 20 percent risk is a vote of confidence from the banks, said Michael Kayman, a restructuring consultant in Chicago.



Obviously these guys have no idea what they are talking about and Ty Web will surely set them straight... :D Obviously these "professionals" don't read flightinfo.com for the real breakdowns.
 
Originally posted by B1900DFO

---"This is one of the best restructurings I've ever been associated with," said Bill Repko, head of JP Morgan's restructuring group, who confirmed a deal is close.



You're not really that gullible, are you? Who do you think stands to benefit from positive news about UAL? C'mon, Beavis, work with me here:

"Uh . . . . . maybe, like, uhh, the guys who are, like uh, putting up the money, errr, something?"

Here's a hint:

The exit-financing package would be underwritten by J.P. Morgan Chase and Citigroup, and could be complete within days, two people familiar with the deal told CBS MarketWatch.


Hmmmmm . . . . is that "eau de Arthur Anderson" I smell?
 
Last edited:
Wow Ty, I didn't think you would be so quick to reply. A little touchy though. It was intended to be humorous.

You shold look into that knee-jerk reaction of yours. Maybe you're in need of a little Stuart Smalley therapy.
 
BE1900DFO,

"Maybe you're in need of a little Stuart Smalley therapy."


That really made me laugh. Thank You. Thinking of TY doing that really is funny.

Bye Bye--General Lee
;) :rolleyes:
 
Does anyone believe any bank would be lending UAL money were it not for the loan guarantee?

But hey, give UAL some money, so that they can afford to lose money on Ted while trying to run F9 out of business. Sadly, the goverment stuck their stick into a beehive, but perhaps they can give F9 a few bucks while they are at it.
 
Speaking of stand by your posts, from Ty Dec 7th...

"It doesn't really matter, though. With no profit on the horizon, no likely source of exit financing, and a republican administration- there's a good chance that UAL will join the list of once-proud airlines in the dust-bin of history."

No likely source of exit financing? What? This deal has been in the works for many months. Its just like when you kept saying "no way in hell" UAL would make it past October because of the DIP covs. Didn't really understand that either, did you? Here's a crazy idea I'm just going to put out there - why not just be happy some fellow aviators have a pretty good shot at keeping their jobs or getting them back?

Dizel8 - I'm wondering who is going to "give" UAL some money? That would be great, but I haven't heard of any such thing since the last time all the airlines got money after the war.
 
No, sorry United, clean your own mess up.
 
Don't shoot the messenger.

As I said before, the UAL management team couldn't run a Starbucks, and the current UAL picture is still very, very shaky.

If they somehow manage to pull this off for the short-term, due to a 2 billion dollar taxpayer bailout and some corporate financial shenanigans, it will probably still be a very short-lived venture.

Good luck to all the pilots still employed there, but if I were you, I would be working very hard on another career, or at least another carrier.

I am sure there were many once-proud names in the passenger railroad lines, although none come to mind right now.
 
Clearly these lenders are on the "inside" regarding UAL managements likely future actions to insure UAL viability and competetivness.

The biggest threat to their long-term viability is the pilot pension issue. Almost certainly the lenders have been assured that if necessary, UAL will alter the pilot pensions a'la US Airways and chop that debt to almost nothing and handing it over to the PBGC.

They know most other employee groups won't give a **CENSORED****CENSORED****CENSORED****CENSORED** and it will relieve them of their biggest burden.

So, with the lenders loans (and there obvious "back-room" knowledge of what will happpen) and the governments loan "guarantee", UAL should have no problem floating. This will be good for most UAL employees (and even pilots who keep their jobs).

But, the pilots will take it in the chops eventually with a pension bomb.

The pilots of UAL had better prepare for the future.

Talk to a US Airways pilot for advice.

To expect anything else is living in denial.
 
Over the nine years I have been at SWA there has been the on going debate about having a defined pension fund. We all know about the legacy carriers that are no longer and what happpened to their retirements but now there is question of survival and the risk of having a defined benefit. Since US AIR and now maybe United having problems with theirs I would prefer a more secure method of retirement.

SWAdude:cool:
 
The bottom line is that the days of depending on the company you work for to provide for your retirement are over. At the very least, if you don't contribute the max to your 401K every year (assuming you would still be able to eat by doing so), then you are a fool. If any "promises" are there at the end, great. If all that airline stock is still worth something at the end, wonderful. Just don't include any of it in your retirement calculations.
 

Latest resources

Back
Top