United Airlines' First Choice: Continental

[jke406]

Air Nat'l Guard, and proud of it.

oh...I should have known. "beat and blow."

 

[BigMeat]

If United pilots think they are going to use the more desirable bases thing in neg. then I want it also to be considered how quick our upgrades are. 2-3 years. Sorry I dont want a merger with an airline that is facing a 5 billion dollar note in 2012. If we have to merge no matter how smooth we want it to go, it will be a war.

 

[BigMeat]

I wish I could make it out on the 12th but I have to work. My friends however are sick of me harrassing them to go but it worked. I got three to go instead of me.

 

[Andy]

If United pilots think they are going to use the more desirable bases thing in neg. then I want it also to be considered how quick our upgrades are. 2-3 years. Sorry I dont want a merger with an airline that is facing a 5 billion dollar note in 2012. If we have to merge no matter how smooth we want it to go, it will be a war.

5 billion? Not according to the latest 10K. UAUA paid down $2.3 bil in debt in 2007. The 10K ending 31 Dec 07 shows total debt and capital lease obligations totalling $8.45 bil. Debt is $7.35 bil; the rest is lease obligations. The amount owed in 2012 is actually $485 million.
By comparison, CAL's 10K shows debt and capital lease obligations at $7.05 bil. Debt is $6.53 bil and capital lease obligations are $524 mil. The amount owed in 2012 for CAL is $563 mil.

Cash, restricted cash and equivalents:
UAL: $4.3 bil (756 mil restricted)
CAL: $3.0 bil (179 mil restricted)

Owned mainline aircraft:
UAL: 255 (includes 46 777s, 17 767-300s, and 21 747s)
CAL: 137 (includes 8 777s, 9 767-200s, and 14 767-400s)

Leased mainline aircraft:
UAL: 205
CAL: 228

While a lot of people take shots at United for profitability and debt, once you tear apart the 10K, you'll see that it's not too bad. In fact, United's operating cash flows for 2007 were $2.1 Bil vice $1.1 Bil for Continental.

Now, as far as bases go, I do not think that arbitrators take that into consideration so any domicile comments are immaterial.
And for upgrades, when I was hired in 2000, we had guys going through captain training that had been on property for 22 months. Don't get too wrapped up about that stuff. Again, the arbitrator is going to look at relative seniority.

Everyone needs to step back and stop with the inflammatory comments. A merger is assured to not happen until Northwest merges due to the golden share. Until that happens, this is just a long schlong contest gone awry.

 

[Bigoober]

Funny, UAL's reputation was fine when he applied.
http://forums.flightinfo.com/showthread.php?p=1508654#post1508654

You don't suppose Bigoober got a rejection letter from UAL?
No worries though; he should be starting with CAL soon. http://forums.flightinfo.com/showthread.php?p=1517084#post1517084

So I'm sure there's absolutely no prejudice in his post. uke:

Wow, Andy, amazing how soon this post came after we tell someone else to lighten up on the caffiene. Too bad your research skills only stop at the point that you are trying to make.

Bigoober (yep, me) didn't get a rejection letter from UAL or CAL but there is plenty of prejudice in my post all of which comes from my United friends. UAL is just fine because a job is a job (and I will still take it if needed, not because of reputation), and at the time, I could use the interview experience. Tons of great people, most who don't assume just because a post doesn't go their way. UAL just happened to be the first to call for an interview and offer, but due to the military I had to put the offer off until later.

The prejudice comes from having each UAL friend's input be to stay away from UAL and now how much they want to merge with CAL to get away from your management. If I remember right, you actually were one of those also- maybe not, don't have the urge to review your posts. Yes, only a handful of input, but it is what I have to go off of. None of it stems from the reputation of the pilots but that of your management that keeps me away not to mention that I want a Texas base.

Don't get me wrong, I know the tide can change, but I am not willing to take a chance on your management and what it has done to your product. Your input on here has been informative and level headed from the UAL front which is hard to find with us pilot types but you stepped on a turd on this one. Heck, in a couple of years post-merger, we'll probably be sitting down at the hotel bar, drinking a beer and talking about some ass who posted on this forum not knowing we are talking about each other!

Again, didn't mean to offend but this was a much more subdued statement than the stuff I hear from the UAL types.

 

[Andy]

Wow, Andy, amazing how soon this post came after we tell someone else to lighten up on the caffiene. Too bad your research skills only stop at the point that you are trying to make.

Bigoober (yep, me) didn't get a rejection letter from UAL or CAL but there is plenty of prejudice in my post all of which comes from my United friends. UAL is just fine because a job is a job (and I will still take it if needed, not because of reputation), and at the time, I could use the interview experience. Tons of great people, most who don't assume just because a post doesn't go their way. UAL just happened to be the first to call for an interview and offer, but due to the military I had to put the offer off until later.

The prejudice comes from having each UAL friend's input be to stay away from UAL and now how much they want to merge with CAL to get away from your management. If I remember right, you actually were one of those also- maybe not, don't have the urge to review your posts. Yes, only a handful of input, but it is what I have to go off of. None of it stems from the reputation of the pilots but that of your management that keeps me away not to mention that I want a Texas base.

Don't get me wrong, I know the tide can change, but I am not willing to take a chance on your management and what it has done to your product. Your input on here has been informative and level headed from the UAL front which is hard to find with us pilot types but you stepped on a turd on this one. Heck, in a couple of years post-merger, we'll probably be sitting down at the hotel bar, drinking a beer and talking about some ass who posted on this forum not knowing we are talking about each other!

Again, didn't mean to offend but this was a much more subdued statement than the stuff I hear from the UAL types.

Reread your post. Was it constructive? Did you really think it didn't have the potential to offend? Now, try it from a different angle - a UAL guy insulted CAL for their hubs. That was an unnecessary and offensive post.
This can easily escalate to the point where it turns into isolated jumpseat denials - that happened with UAL/USAirways. Look at some of the exchanges between NWA and DAL.

As for my position on UAL management, it's been pretty consistent (I did a search for my posts that contained the word Tilton):
http://forums.flightinfo.com/showthread.php?p=310363&highlight=tilton#post310363
http://forums.flightinfo.com/showthread.php?p=874437&highlight=tilton#post874437
http://forums.flightinfo.com/showthread.php?p=1197469#post1197469

I've always felt that Tilton was a great money manager; he was able to get the financial backing required to save United. Yes, he's evil. Yes, he's paid a lot of money. But I believe in giving the devil his due - he saved United from going chap 7 when it was all but a foregone conclusion.
Do I want him to continue as CEO? I used to not want him; now I'm ambivalent. If we merge, I'd want CAL management hands down (although I question the wisdom of all the new aircraft orders at this point in the business cycle). If we remain independent going into a recession, a good money manager might be the one to save our butts. Tilton may still have value at United.
After looking over the 10K, I was surprised at how much debt he's shed. I'm glad to see that we have a ton of cash; mostly unrestricted. I'm not happy about the special dividend to shareholders - I would've preferred to see that money go to updating United's computer system, aircraft interiors, and paying down debt (I'm not a fan of the classic airline model of being extremely leveraged).

 

[Bigoober]

I didn't intend to be constructive in my post, and yes, it was posted without regard to offending someone. I probably could have clarified who I think has driven United's reputation down but I didn't as it should be clear. As for the different angle, I'm glad he doesn't like CAL's hubs and that is his opinion whether it offends someone or not. Some people just offend too easily and have to realize that this is a forum where OPINIONS (which usually aren't constructive) are mixed in with ideas and debate. I made a very general statement whereas you went at me with veiled sarcasm thinking I was playing a Poconopilot (glorifying an airline until I was rejected) on this. I wasn't.

Your opinion on UAL management may be consistent, but you are going down the path that I am talking about. UAL management is not well liked and that is what sets the tone for the entire airline. UALs reputation is sinking in the public's eyes because of the lack of investment in its own product (interiors, booking systems, age of aircraft). The stockholders may like it with their nice little dividend, but that doesn't help you guys out.

Believe me, there was a time until a couple of years ago that I would have loved to join United's ranks as you have one proud heritage behind you, but from what I see now, it is in the past and picking an airline on its past is shaky- as is predicting its future, see we all lose. I have to go with what I see for the future though and I am hoping CAL's is bright.

I'm with you though on being amazed by how well United has been able to build up its cash reserves, but I think it is all part of Tilton's desire to just merge with someone, beef up the bottom line. I'm not a smart enough man to put it all together as I am trying to save my brain cells for learning 121 flying in general, but isn't a lot of UAL's ability to save this cash based on not doing the things necessary to keep the airline "fresh". Isn't part of CAL's lack of cash because it is still funding its employees retirements (not that anyone can expect a pension ANYWHERE, this coming from a military guy).

I just looked at your profile and you fit exactly what my bud's plans are- too stay mil leave as long as possible. I hear that UAL is having some problems with the numbers doing this. I don't blame you for waiting it out but again, I don't think my opinion was too far off.

Sorry I offended you and the other member. You won't have to worry about a jumpseat denial from me although I firmly believe that we will be with the same airline by the time I would ever make that call anyways!

 

[Andy]

Your opinion on UAL management may be consistent, but you are going down the path that I am talking about. UAL management is not well liked and that is what sets the tone for the entire airline. UALs reputation is sinking in the public's eyes because of the lack of investment in its own product (interiors, booking systems, age of aircraft). The stockholders may like it with their nice little dividend, but that doesn't help you guys out.

I didn't read your original post as being aimed at management. My concern is that it takes very little to ignite an all out flame war between the pilots of two airlines.
Just for the record, United is upgrading all of it's interiors on international aircraft. There was also a plan in the works to upgrade United's IT infrastructure. So the money's going there; I just didn't think that a shareholder dividend was appropriate.

I just looked at your profile and you fit exactly what my bud's plans are- too stay mil leave as long as possible. I hear that UAL is having some problems with the numbers doing this. I don't blame you for waiting it out but again, I don't think my opinion was too far off.

I return to United in April on the 767. I delayed for a number of reasons; too numerous to go into here.

Sorry I offended you and the other member. You won't have to worry about a jumpseat denial from me although I firmly believe that we will be with the same airline by the time I would ever make that call anyways

You didn't offend me, but there are plenty of people who read this stuff. I didn't read your original post as being aimed at management; rather the entire airline. Innocent comments can quickly turn into an all out firefight, especially when there are merger rumors. Once merger rumors come up, a lot of these threads quickly turn into a bunch of my airline's better than your airline threads. If they escalate unabated, you go from small derogatory comments about each other to an intense hatred between the two groups.
I've even seen stupid posts from United guys saying something along the lines of our scabs are better than your scabs because our scabs know their place. Stupid comment.
I'll refrain from further comment on this; I can see now that your comments were aimed at management and not an attack on the entire airline.

Good luck to you at CAL; it's a great airline.

 

[Flopgut]

I'll give UAL the 747's and the better bases. The single thing we can't end up with is the UAL scope clause! CAL mgt bought almost 300 50 seaters simply based on scope. If they get a hold of what the eternal moron Paul W. used to "save the A fund!" at UAL (dumbest words ever uttered) they'll buy 500 70 seaters. You can leverage every positive UALALPA brings to the equation and it won't outweigh the difference in scope clauses.

 

[Patriot328]

Again, the arbitrator is going to look at relative seniority.

Andy,

The one problem of relative seniority, at least from a CAL pilot perspective, is relative seniority integration will actually hurt a lot of CAL pilots career progression.

In 15 years or so, Continental is having close to 2000 out of 5000 pilots retire. If you are at 80% at CAL, with the retirements coming up over the next 10 years (it was five years), you will move up 20% to the 60% level in 10 years and then to the 40% level in 15. With the age of the pilots at UAL and their retirement schedule, that movement will be diluted because they they are a considerably younger pilot group.

Likewise, if you are UAL pilot at 80% before and after a relatively seniority integration, you will have the benefit of having considerably more retirements, percentage wise, than before and will move up the combined seniority list (percentage wise) faster than you would have without the merger (percentage wise).

The numbers I used aren't exact, but the principle is correct.

What is the retirement schedule at UAL for the next 25 years or so? Someone has to have it....